Re: telconf 07-11-2012 : what is webid

On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:22, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:

> On 11/15/2012 05:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 11/15/12 4:57 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>>> [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?
>> 
>> And clearly you are behind the thread. The definition has been
>> corrected. I don't have major issues with the new definition.
> 
> True, I'm trying to limit my time to _doing_ things.
> 
>> Turtle and hash URLs are not in the new definition.
> 
> I wonder if people advocating for such things read the minutes that
> lead to the vote and the Approved definition during TPAC.
> 
> I'm designing systems, with interoperability and adoption in mind. In
> the case of WebID, we believe that it means "building on top of LDP",
> which I recall is the only W3C Working Group that is chartered to work
> on defining the platform (Read-Write) for RDF data *on the Web*. This
> Community Group has *no chance* to bring WebID to LDP if it's not
> built on top of LDP, you need to realize that.

I think we are allready very close to it. We have a WebID over TLS 
authenticator MUST understand Turtle and RDFa. And We have a WebID
document Must return something that can be transformed into RDF.

See the definition of WebID and WebID Profile

 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/index-respec.html

What it does currently is require a public key tied to the WebID.
As I understand that is too much precision for you. I think 
perhaps most of us agree on that now. But the question is we still
need to define a bit more precisely what is in the profile document 
then. And that is tricky, but see below...

> 
> So if it means that we need to stop speaking about WebID just because
> we don't agree on the goal and the plan, then I'm happy to do so.
> 
> What about LDP-ID?

By the way I think it is a good exercise to define an LDP-ID. I did so a 
bit earlier in this thread.

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Nov/0037.html




> 
> Alexandre.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Please bring yourself up to date re. current state of the thread about
>> the WebID definition. You are out of sync right now!
>> 
>> The only debates in play (between Henry and I) right now are minor re.
>> URI vs URL, that's it.
> 
> True, I'm trying to limit my time on ML to do
> 
>> 
>> Kingsley
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/