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

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:27:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJyffgY8E5EYxKOkd9GHa+JFb58yUBW5JZJj5uD8N2b2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
On 4 November 2012 20:10, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

>  On 11/4/12 1:18 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4 November 2012 19:06, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/4/12 7:46 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I suggest to go back to the minutes from 30/10, and look at what
>>> arguments were presented then.
>>> http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html
>>>
>>> The main reason why we decided that WebIDs must be hashed URIs, was to
>>> differentiate between URIs referring to users/agents and URIs referring to
>>> documents (hashless URIs). For more details, take a look at httpRange-14
>>> issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14.
>>>
>>> The reason why we decided to make turtle mandatory was to try to align
>>> ourselves to the LDP spec, since it's in both our interests to do so. The
>>> main argument here (raised by TimBL) was that we should focus on moving
>>> forward towards a WG, and trying to support as many formats as possible (at
>>> this point) will hold us back.
>>>
>>> I know it's difficult for some of you to understand why these changes
>>> are happening, but please everyone, just go and reread the minutes. It's
>>> all in there.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>
>>  Reading the minutes doesn't change anything at all.
>>
>> The definition is utterly broken. This is a total disservice to this
>> endeavor.
>>
>> There were 16 +1's for this broken definition. Nathan asked the 16 +1'ers
>> to defend their positions. Thus, far nobody has made a cogent case for
>> compromising the essence of AWWW and Linked Data.
>>
>> If you believe in something, make a logical case for it. Thus far, there
>> is no logical case for compromising the essence of AWWW and Linked Data en
>> route to Web-scale verifiable identity.
>>
>>
>> Those of us that oppose this broken definition are ready to defend our
>> positions.
>>
>
> Note: in the minutes I was the *only* person not to +1 this, but after
> some thought I changed my mind and here's my analysis
>
> The technology we use has not changed.
>
>
> It has, a critical requirement has changed. We can no longer use opaque
> URI that denote entities. That's a humongous change.
>
>
>
>    We still have complete, universal, tolerant structures using URIs that
> obey the law of independent invention.
>
>
> No you don't.
>
>   Our solutions are interoperable.  Universal does not mean unique!
>
>
> Wrong again.
>
> The solutions in question (re. WebID) are no longer interoperable. A
> verifier will fault on a hashless URI. It will fault if a profile document
> isn't comprised of Turtle content. It will also fault on a non http: scheme
> URI.  You seriously regard that as interoperable?
>
>
>
> On branding it's changed before and it can change again.  Is not a huge
> deal to me personally.
>
>
> It isn't going to be changed so trivially. Just watch. We've re-entered
> the RDF (Reality Distortion Field) zone, yet again.
>
>
> Henry has worked on WebID for some time at his own expense (and has even
> been to prison for it!).
>
>
> This has zilch to do with Henry. What have other implementers doing?
>
>   He should certainly be able to suggest branding that he feels he feels
> comfortable with, and that will be effective in meeting his goals and
> expectations for the project.
>
>
> Since you believe Henry is somehow the owner and determining factor of
> what constitutes the definition of WebID, again you miss the point of this
> endeavor. My involvement with WebID has nothing to do with Henry (whom I've
> known for many years), it has everything to do with Web-scale verifiable
> identity based AWWW and Linked Data.
>
>
> One of the pros was that it was felt this narrow definition would
> expediate getting to REC status, either with a WG or by LDP using this as
> the definition for identity.
>
>
> WebID != Identity. It is a mechanism (hopefully) for Web-scale verifiable
> identity via the combined use of Identifiers, security tokens, and an
> authentication protocol. The authentication protocol exploits entity
> relationship semantics and logic.
>
>  Another pro is that it simplifies test suites.
>
>
> No it doesn't. You can make technical specs the include implementation
> guides that form the basis of test suites without utterly turning the
> endeavor on its head.
>
>  Another is that WebID has a beach head in facebook, making it
> potentially one of the largest identity systems on the Web, though Henry
> didnt want to play that aspect up until there is a deeper linked data
> integration.
>
>
> Facebook is already a large publisher of Linked Data [1]. I am sure you
> noticed, they haven't made any song and dance about Turtle or anything like
> that. They simply have Linked Data as an option for Facebook Graph API
> developers, that's it.
>
>
> I personally like general definitions for things such as the URIs, AWWW,
> design issues etc. but I think the feeling was that sometimes to get things
> done you need to focus.
>
>
> The are not definitions. URIs are a critical component of AWWW. Linked
> Data exploits URIs en route to enabling webby structured data. RDF enables
> incorporation of explicit entity relationship semantics into webby
> structured data.
>
>
>
>    We still have all the goodness of AWWW we just will need to alter what
> we call things slightly.
>
>
> You don't. You are trying to convince yourself of something that's an
> utter fallacy. The definition of WebID being pushed isn't in anyway close
> to AWWW in spirit or essence. It's utterly alien.
>

I appreciate these are good points.  Maybe we should have "strong webids"
and "weak webids", i dont know.  Personally, I dont mind what the naming is
so long as I can use it to do what I need.  But I can see that others may
have stronger views.  It's up to the WebID CG to come to a consensus.


>
> Kingsley
>
>
>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>
>>> On 11/04/2012 07:29 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 November 2012 12:47, Jürgen Jakobitsch
>>>> <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at <mailto:j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     hi melvin,
>>>>
>>>>     for me the problem is that we now have a political dimension of
>>>> personal
>>>>     preferences which cut my personal freedom of choice.
>>>>
>>>>     if we award other linked data groups the same behaviour (express
>>>>     preferences of uri or serialization) the argument about the
>>>> advantages
>>>>     of having one kind of uri and one kind of serialization become void.
>>>>
>>>>     linked data works with any kind of dereferenceable uri and any kind
>>>> of
>>>>     serialization.
>>>>     if webID only works with hash-http-uris and turtle it is just
>>>> another
>>>>     application in the spirit of web2.0 in the special disguise of using
>>>>     linked data techniques.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really do sympathize with the points you made and I was initially
>>>> taken aback by this.  But having thought about it, I've warmed to the
>>>> idea.  LDP is on a REC track and is possibly the group most relevant to
>>>> our work.  If we can avoid duplication of effort that would be a plus,
>>>> imho.
>>>>
>>>> I really dont think anything has changed.  Give yourself a
>>>> dereferencable URI and you're "on the web".
>>>>
>>>> WebID itself is just a name, and it will hopefully have a URI soon of
>>>> the form urn:rfc pointing to a spec.
>>>>
>>>> So the spec started mandating FOAF then it mandated an Agent, now it
>>>> mandates turtle.  Things change, and may change again before 2014 when
>>>> LDP becomes a REC.
>>>>
>>>> Is there really a problem with hash URIs?  Redirects are a pain to
>>>> program.  Ontowiki did object to this but after some thought worked out
>>>> their architecture may even be better without the redirects.
>>>>
>>>> In what way do you think this is in the spirit of web 2.0?  It is using
>>>> a complete generalized and universal platform to solve a specific case
>>>> in a way that will be interoperable and follow standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>   --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> 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 Sunday, 4 November 2012 19:27:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 4 November 2012 19:27:32 GMT