- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:46:31 +0200
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
Hi, just some implementation feedback and a look at extending the current Webmention: I've created a http://csarven.ca/webmention endpoint on my site which is also an article describing its own implementation/approach. The endpoint accepts source, property (optional) and target (optional) parameters. It accepts claims via standalone POSTs, or by submitting through the form on the page. The page is also an article giving further details about its approach/extension to the current webmention design. The endpoint can handle claims using RDF (i.e., in different serializations: RDFa, Turtle, N-Triples, JSON-LD, RDF/XML, [and probably SPARQL results but have not tested that yet]), and microformats 2 data patterns found at the source (although at the time of this writing IWC interactions are not microformats, but rather just IWC terms). I've tried to find equivalents of some of the terms using IWC interactions, SIOC, schema.org, Open Annotations, Activity Streams. So, if the property parameter is given in a webmention or the property/relation is picked up as part of the verifications process, it will apply whatever it can in the output/display. Read the article for some other details, and see also the few interactions it received. IMO, the key addition to the current webmention design is for receivers to accept the property parameter. It is an explicit claim given to the receiver, in which the receiver can even decide whether to handle the claim or not without doing a single GET. If we look at this from another angle, not providing the property (as term, prefixed name, or URI) means that something most likely hyperlinked (aka "webmention"ed) something else. This is currently what we have in webmention, a super-property. Questions/feedback welcome. Happy to test further if anyone wants to play along. -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 20:47:04 UTC