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

Re: [webid spec] overview section

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:43:10 +0000
Message-ID: <50ABF96E.7040802@webr3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-webid@w3.org
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/20/12 3:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 11/20/12 2:50 PM, Andrei SAMBRA wrote:
>>>>       I think it may be useful also to explain how these WebIDs can
>>>>     then be used to
>>>>     create social networks - across servers. ( I can send a graphic of
>>>>     interlinked WebIDs for
>>>>     that ).
>>>> Isn't this out of scope for the spec? It's up to each of us to 
>>>> decide how we want to use WebIDs.
>>> It's okay for a conceptual guide. Such a guide should have a least 
>>> one usecase scenario. The moment to get a profile graph from the 
>>> de-reference of a WebID you are in social web/network territory.
>> WebID 1.0 is getting to the point where there's almost nothing to 
>> specify, it's a one liner of words which equate to "a dereferencable 
>> URI for an Agent", 
> I wish :-)
> We haven't been able to get beyond:
> 1. dereferencable URI that denotes an Agent
> 2. dereferencable HTTP URI that denotes an Agent
> 3. derferencable hash based HTTP URI that denotes an Agent.
> Even the indentation above highlights interop issues with visual broader 
> and narrower effect.

Yup, it's just extra stars really, (1) is required (2) is 
common-linked-data (3) is "nicest".

Interop depends on perspective and context, if working within the realm 
of HTTP and RDF, then punting the most common/simple pattern will have 
benefits, if working within a more general web realm, or even net realm, 
then increased generality will lead to more interop.

Which is where's it's interesting, because obviously the more general 
WebID is defined, the more potentially-interoperable it is, however the 
tighter it's defined, the more realistically-interoperable it is, as it 
limits adoption pain and makes it simpler to implement and support 
within the common HTTP realm.

Both are important, and there's a trade-off to be made.

>> everything else I see is just padding, so may as well be padding which 
>> shows how WebIDs can be used, imho - if we're gunning for adoption 
>> here that is.
> Yes.
>> Something I haven't noticed (may have missed), is any text which shows 
>> a distinction between an Agent Identifier, and an Identifier for a 
>> UserAccount, like twitter or g+.
> Yep.
> One for the principals bucket, methinks. And yet another reference to 
> "principal" from WebDAV ACL [1]

Not a term I've heard used for quite a while, but it certainly fits the 
bill, "principal" is almost synonymous with the way we use the term "agent".


Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 21:44:15 UTC

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