- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:57:08 -0500
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: Andrei SAMBRA <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
[snip] >> That was the concern of the people who set the definition for WebID at >> TPAC. > > Not wanting to go backwards, instead of forwards. The conclusion at TPAC > were simply wrong albeit well intended. Maybe you need to ask yourself why all the people in the room agreed, and why you're still fighting? > >> I don't understand why people are loosing time with changing the >> definition. > > Because any definition of WebID that includes specific references to > hash URIs and Turtle is broken. Simple as that. To you maybe. Not to the people interested in defining the standard, and with adoption as a goal. I don't have time to spend on endless debates when only a very few individuals are noisy. I define and implement systems. So I would suggest to people to focus on the definition we had previously, and adapt the spec and our implementations accordingly. Let's move forward please. Alexandre. > > > Kingsley >> >> Alexandre. >> >>> >>> For WebID based authentication to work it doesn't need to compromise the >>> virtues of URIs. Just use simple examples to make matters clearer. >>> >>> The solution to the problem is that you don't introduce technology via a >>> technical spec. It's conventionally achieved as follows: >>> >>> 1. conceptual guide and overview >>> 2. technical specs >>> 3. implementation guides and examples -- this is where you can be >>> specific about URLs, Turtle docs etc.. by using them in all the >>> examples. >>> >>> When you start from #2 you are vulnerable to: >>> >>> 1. political distractions -- e.g., format (as opposed to semantics) >>> oriented warfare >>> 2. FUD -- when the abstract nature isn't obvious those threatened will >>> come at you with FUD. >>> >>> We don't need to compromise the essence of the Web for all of this to >>> work. >>> >>> Remember, HTML wasn't prescribed to the world en route to WWW bootstrap, >>> the "view source" pattern from early browsers enabled folks to cut and >>> paste what was behind the page (which could have been anything) into new >>> spaces en route to understanding the implications of fusing Hypertext >>> and TCP/IP. >>> >>> Standards are retrsopective things, they are the result of coalescing >>> around what works, so the sequence is always: >>> >>> 1. de facto standard -- common practice >>> 3. industry standard -- accepted best practice. >>> >>> >>> Kingsley >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 Thursday, 15 November 2012 21:57:47 UTC