- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:14:32 +1000
- To: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org
On 01/04/2008, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > > Story Henry wrote: > > > My feeling is that what is needed is to see how this could be made to > > work better with SSL. > I've already posted a message suggesting an HTTPS-based solution. > > Message-ID: <62649.81.2.120.180.1206622777.squirrel@goddamn.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [foaf-dev] Re: privacy and open data > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:37 -0000 (UTC) > > Summary: > > 1. Client requests public FOAF > 2. FOAF contains rdf:seeAlso with URI for HTTPS private FOAF Why does FOAF insist on making things non-specific with seeAlso. If you can make up a term that may be more understandable than ideally you should. Ie, foaf:restrictedVersion or something like that so someone knows why on earth they are following the URL and what they should expect to occur after that given their knowledge of the term. Peter
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 00:15:06 UTC