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

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Andrei Sambra <andrei@fcns.eu>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 07:46:20 -0500
Message-ID: <5096639C.1070405@fcns.eu>
CC: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Hi all,

I suggest to go back to the minutes from 30/10, and look at what 
arguments were presented then. 

The main reason why we decided that WebIDs must be hashed URIs, was to 
differentiate between URIs referring to users/agents and URIs referring 
to documents (hashless URIs). For more details, take a look at 
httpRange-14 issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/14.

The reason why we decided to make turtle mandatory was to try to align 
ourselves to the LDP spec, since it's in both our interests to do so. 
The main argument here (raised by TimBL) was that we should focus on 
moving forward towards a WG, and trying to support as many formats as 
possible (at this point) will hold us back.

I know it's difficult for some of you to understand why these changes 
are happening, but please everyone, just go and reread the minutes. It's 
all in there.


On 11/04/2012 07:29 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 4 November 2012 12:47, Jürgen Jakobitsch
> <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at <mailto:j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>> wrote:
>     hi melvin,
>     for me the problem is that we now have a political dimension of personal
>     preferences which cut my personal freedom of choice.
>     if we award other linked data groups the same behaviour (express
>     preferences of uri or serialization) the argument about the advantages
>     of having one kind of uri and one kind of serialization become void.
>     linked data works with any kind of dereferenceable uri and any kind of
>     serialization.
>     if webID only works with hash-http-uris and turtle it is just another
>     application in the spirit of web2.0 in the special disguise of using
>     linked data techniques.
> I really do sympathize with the points you made and I was initially
> taken aback by this.  But having thought about it, I've warmed to the
> idea.  LDP is on a REC track and is possibly the group most relevant to
> our work.  If we can avoid duplication of effort that would be a plus,
> imho.
> I really dont think anything has changed.  Give yourself a
> dereferencable URI and you're "on the web".
> WebID itself is just a name, and it will hopefully have a URI soon of
> the form urn:rfc pointing to a spec.
> So the spec started mandating FOAF then it mandated an Agent, now it
> mandates turtle.  Things change, and may change again before 2014 when
> LDP becomes a REC.
> Is there really a problem with hash URIs?  Redirects are a pain to
> program.  Ontowiki did object to this but after some thought worked out
> their architecture may even be better without the redirects.
> In what way do you think this is in the spirit of web 2.0?  It is using
> a complete generalized and universal platform to solve a specific case
> in a way that will be interoperable and follow standards.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 12:46:47 UTC

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