Re: New WebID spec on identity.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On 19 November 2012 21:36, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>wrote:
>
>> * On Nov 19, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> >
>> > For this you need to put up an issue in the issue tracker
>> >
>> >  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/
>> >
>> > in the product WebID-definition. Point to this e-mail for details.
>>
>> ISSUE-69 exists for this purpose.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/69
>>
>> The name/description was short-handed to get it into place before
>> being forgotten.  To my eyes, your (Henry's) "additional notes" in
>> that issue reflect less of what actually happened in the telecon,
>> and more of what your interpretation of the conversation was.
>>
>> There are strong arguments for both hashed and hashless URIs.
>> I see this these arguments as reason to permit both, and to
>> include some discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each
>> in the documents we produce -- including both the costs of lookup
>> on 3xx redirection (both client- and server-side) and the increased
>> flexibility that may be provided by such explicit indirection, vs
>> the lower cost of lookup without 3xx redirection and the limited
>> flexibility mandated by this implicit indirection.
>>
>
> I've been wondering for some time now what you gain from the 303 dance.
>
> Sorry if I've missed something, but could you go over the benefits of
> having, say
>
> http://graph.facebook.com/dave
>
> over
>
> http://graph.facebook.com/dave#
>


Have you checked the Facebook paper from Jesse Weaver and Paul Tarjan at
http://semantic-web-journal.net/sites/default/files/swj282_0.pdf ?

But more importantly, the question here is not about deciding which one is
best, but whether we should pick one or instead leave it open so that
people can implement whichever approach they prefer, and simply rely on the
nature of HTTP.

Steph.