W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Jürgen Jakobitsch <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:25:01 +0100
To: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1351729501.8964.74.camel@linux-1rgw.site>

i need to add my two cents to this thread and hereby invite the whole
community to a big party the day the discussions about uris and
serializations are over.

both are abstract concepts and should thus be treated as such.
we must accept the fact that uris come in different shapes, either is a
URI (mr. jackson : i'm not going to spend my life being a color).

going for one shape is a sign of non-algorithmic thinking.

with serialization one can even take it one step further into the realm
of fractal thinking.

the physical world as we perceive it on a daily basis can be seen as a
serialization of reality (followed by what some call nirvana in the next
iteration) influenced by our accept headers (illusions). 
likewise turtle, rdf+xml and co. are only forms of an idea that are of
no interest. a tautology resolves to true, no matter in what language it
is expressed.

in my attempt to get rid of all illusions i not only oppose debates on
what kind of uri to use but oppose all discussions on shapes.

cnr turnguard 

On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 09:38 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> All,
> In the last 48 hours following TPAC, a definition of what a WebID has 
> emerged. It reads as follows: "WebID" (hash HTTP URI which denotes an 
> Agent. Where you can GET an RDF model as TURTLE.) .
> I believe this definition is unnecessary inflexible albeit well intended.
> Problem:
> A URI is an opaque identifier.
> A Linked Data URI is a de-referencable URI that denotes an entity in 
> such a way that when de-referenced said URI resolves to a description 
> document of its referent. Put differently, you have two routes to the 
> same document content i.e., the first being the entity name (URI) and 
> the other being the entity description document address (URI/URL). 
> Ideally, the content of the document in question takes the form of RDF 
> model based structured data represented (or expressed) using an entity 
> relationship graph.
> A WebID supposed to be a Linked Data URI.
> HTTP, hash URIs, and even the RDF data model are specific implementation 
> details. They are collectively cost-effective and useful, but none of 
> that makes them mandatory items for specs relating to Linked Data, 
> Web-scale identity verification, or Web-scale resource access control.
> The architecture of the Web is deliberately abstract thereby enabling 
> powerful loose coupling of data access protocols, data representation 
> formats, and semantics.
> Simple Example:
> At this point in time, should this definition hold, the hashless 
> ProxyURIs that we use to watermark X.509 certificates for holders of 
> LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, G+ etc.. accounts are all rendered non 
> conforming, just like that.
> Conclusion:
> I am officially lodging my opposition to this definition of a URI that 
> serves as a WebID.

| Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
| Software Developer
| Semantic Web Company GmbH
| Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
| A - 1070 Wien, Austria
| Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22

| web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
| foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
| web       : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:25:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:45 UTC