- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 18:49:17 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKrY60aBf3B6XkdKWt5BCdF59=Mc=U2_gpRLdCccK3xOg@mail.gmail.com>
On 31 October 2012 14:38, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> 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, I share you concerns. It's important to note that this is primarily a branding issue rather than technical. We've changed brand before, namely from FOAF+SSL to WebID. Personally, I find it hard to weigh the pros vs cons of this decision. But I do think having an agreed consensus of what terms means (eg identity vs authentication protocol) is a plus. I was also horrified to learn that I didnt have a webid anymore, but got it serving turtle via conneg within an hour, and as a direct result could log in to my profile again! > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen> > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2012 17:49:44 UTC