Re: a common understanding of profiles

On 26 June 2015 at 19:45, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote:

>  On 2015-06-26 11:04 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>  Well I thought you were tying (for example) the key "@type" and value
> "Person" to the http doc : https://evanprodmorou.example/profile
>
>
>    1. No. Re-read the example.
>    2. It doesn't matter. Use an HTTP URI with a fragment or whatever you
>    want. @id is opaque.
>
>
I think you may have misunderstood how JSON LD works, or there may be a
more general misunderstanding going on.  I'd suggest working this
particularly example through on IRC, if you'd like to dive into more
detail. URIs are generally opaque but # characters are not according RFC
3986


>
>
>
>>> So, how to get interoperable profiles?
>>>
>>  Pick a data standard, and a way to find the profiles. Then, everybody
>> implements that.
>>
>> It would be wrong to assume that the point of this working group is to
>> make Melvin's site implemented in FOAF with Turtle talk to Aaron's site
>> implemented in HTML with microformats.
>>
>
>  I guess Im not quite seeing it how to implement an interoperable social
> API without interoperable social profiles.
>
> That's not what I'm saying. Making a bridge that translates between FOAF
> in Turtle on LDP and Microformats on HTML is out of scope for this group.
> It'd be a fun project and might be good for a community group, but we need
> to come up with *one* profile standard, not 3-4.
>

OK, well im saying that Im confused at how to design and implement SWAT0,
following, the use cases and social API without a common understanding of
profiles.  Perhaps this might become apparent in time, but it's not now.


>
> -Evan
>
>