- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:27:03 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJyffgY8E5EYxKOkd9GHa+JFb58yUBW5JZJj5uD8N2b2A@mail.gmail.com>
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 19:27:33 UTC