W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:28:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5091D040.8010105@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 10/31/12 8:37 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Fair to say that in a nutshell, you'd be happy that every person who 
> makes tooling to use with WebID should support every possible 
> mediatype that can potentially hold the statements needed to verify a 
> webid?

This isn't the point Jurgen is making. Breaking URI opacity is simply 
unacceptable and unnecessary.

> J├╝rgen Jakobitsch wrote:
>> hi,
>> i need to add my two cents to this thread and hereby invite the whole
>> community to a big party the day the discussions about uris and
>> serializations are over.
>> both are abstract concepts and should thus be treated as such.
>> we must accept the fact that uris come in different shapes, either is a
>> URI (mr. jackson : i'm not going to spend my life being a color).
>> going for one shape is a sign of non-algorithmic thinking.
>> with serialization one can even take it one step further into the realm
>> of fractal thinking.
>> the physical world as we perceive it on a daily basis can be seen as a
>> serialization of reality (followed by what some call nirvana in the next
>> iteration) influenced by our accept headers (illusions). likewise 
>> turtle, rdf+xml and co. are only forms of an idea that are of
>> no interest. a tautology resolves to true, no matter in what language it
>> is expressed.
>> in my attempt to get rid of all illusions i not only oppose debates on
>> what kind of uri to use but oppose all discussions on shapes.
>> cnr turnguard
>> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 09:38 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> All,
>>> In the last 48 hours following TPAC, a definition of what a WebID 
>>> has emerged. It reads as follows: "WebID" (hash HTTP URI which 
>>> denotes an Agent. Where you can GET an RDF model as TURTLE.) .
>>> I believe this definition is unnecessary inflexible albeit well 
>>> intended.
>>> Problem:
>>> A URI is an opaque identifier.
>>> A Linked Data URI is a de-referencable URI that denotes an entity in 
>>> such a way that when de-referenced said URI resolves to a 
>>> description document of its referent. Put differently, you have two 
>>> routes to the same document content i.e., the first being the entity 
>>> name (URI) and the other being the entity description document 
>>> address (URI/URL). Ideally, the content of the document in question 
>>> takes the form of RDF model based structured data represented (or 
>>> expressed) using an entity relationship graph.
>>> A WebID supposed to be a Linked Data URI.
>>> HTTP, hash URIs, and even the RDF data model are specific 
>>> implementation details. They are collectively cost-effective and 
>>> useful, but none of that makes them mandatory items for specs 
>>> relating to Linked Data, Web-scale identity verification, or 
>>> Web-scale resource access control.
>>> The architecture of the Web is deliberately abstract thereby 
>>> enabling powerful loose coupling of data access protocols, data 
>>> representation formats, and semantics.
>>> Simple Example:
>>> At this point in time, should this definition hold, the hashless 
>>> ProxyURIs that we use to watermark X.509 certificates for holders of 
>>> LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, G+ etc.. accounts are all rendered non 
>>> conforming, just like that.
>>> Conclusion:
>>> I am officially lodging my opposition to this definition of a URI 
>>> that serves as a WebID.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 01:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:31 UTC