- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:14:02 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A9CEDF78-67E8-4030-BCA7-9737315A9219@bblfish.net>
On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:09, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 21 November 2012 17:04, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > I am not sure the RWW mailing list is the right place to send this message, > as they have not followed the debate. I think we need a wiki page that lists > the pros and cons of each of the issues below, if you are going to bring new > people to the conversation. > > I think it's fine for a straw poll, for those that are interested. I dont see any of the mailing list protocols being violated, imho. If you are suggesting that I suggested the mailing list protocols were being violated, then you misunderstood the intent of my paragraph above. I was just pointing out that people who may not have followed the conversion may want to know why they are being asked to decide on a technical issue. If so they may like to have some information on why they should decide one way or the other. > > Personally I'm a +0 and will get behind the consensus view whatever the terms are called. I liked it when it was tied FOAF+SSL, I liked it when it was tied to a public key, and I like it even better with the current split between auth and identity. > > All other things being equal, I lean towards the axiom of tolerance to allow as much as possible. > > > On 21 Nov 2012, at 16:49, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > > > All, > > > > As per a variety of threads re. the matter of the definition of a WebID, I kindly request a simple +1, -1, or 0 vote on the following issue of concern: > > > > Should a WebID be defined specifically as a hash based HTTP URI? > > "Specifically" is not clear. > > In terms of language we can use MUST, SHOULD etc. > > So perhaps you can rephrase it in those terms. > > [1] a WebID MUST be a an HTTP hash uri > [2] a WebID SHOULD be an HTTP hash uri > [3] a WebID SHOULD be any HTTP hash uri > > in all cases of course we agree that the URI MUST refer to an agent as described in the current spec. > > Is this better? > > > > > > Note: > > Most of use are extremely time challenged, and really need to make decisions and set priorities re. this matter. Thus, I would like those with a vested interest in this matter to vote. > > > > This is an informative endeavor. > > > > Poll Question: > > Do you support defining a WebID *specifically* as a hash based HTTP URI? > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 16:14:35 UTC