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

Re: New WebID spec on identity.

From: Andrei SAMBRA <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:23:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFG79eitPnRQp4PAJqU7OjfTgLpLLZP235HM9qKXvbSdfPfG-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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 ?
>
>
Nice find, Steph! Here is a relevant snip from the paper:

....
"As mentioned, information about an instance with primitive identifier id
can be found at /id. Thus, the simplest solution for minting a Linked Data
URI for the instance is to append a fragment to the URI. The common
conventions of using fragments #this and #me were considered, but in the
end, the empty fragment # was chosen so as to require the least amount
of modification to the URI possible."
....


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.
>
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 21:23:57 UTC

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