Re: What is a WebID?

Fair to say that in a nutshell, you'd be happy that every person who 
makes tooling to use with WebID should support every possible mediatype 
that can potentially hold the statements needed to verify a webid?

Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
> hi, 
> 
> 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.
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 00:38:42 UTC