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

Re: WebID definition proposal with any kind of URI

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:59:58 -0500
Message-ID: <50A654EE.3040600@openlinksw.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, Bart van Leeuwen <Bart_van_Leeuwen@netage.nl>
On 11/16/12 9:04 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>
> Yes, we know dereferencing in the case of HTTP, but not sure what the 
> means for other URI schemes. But that is not an issue in the decoupled 
> approach I'm suggesting above, where at the top level we define the 
> WebID protocol not tied to any kind of URI, and separately we define 
> the HTTP URI WebID protocol as we know it today. The other kind of 
> URIs can be worked out elsewhere without blocking progress on HTTP WebID.
>
> Steph.
+1

Where we all used to be i.e., DNA inherited from Linked Data, which 
inherits from AWWW etc..

Remember, we already have WebID implementations for other URI schemes. 
Been so for years. Same even applies to Linked Data itself, we've had 
non http: resolvers for years. Ultimately URI's are the optimal focal 
point, but there are folks here that want to make this thing http: 
specific, and for the very wrong reasons.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen






Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 15:00:32 UTC

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