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

Re: WebID teleconf, Friday 30 Nov

From: Jürgen Jakobitsch <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:15:17 +0100
To: public-webid@w3.org
Message-ID: <1354266917.5533.19.camel@linux-1rgw.site>
henry,

1. you realize there's an oldid url param in the link, the argument has
already been deleted a long time ago (not by me).
2. my reasoner tells me, that there's a bug in wiki if an argument in
the "against http must section" is not allowed.
3. my compiler tells me, that in a situation where this wiki would be
some sort of poll (=have a return value "int" in the range of 1 to 3) i
could run into a nullpointer exception when arguing against all three
possibilities ( => xa || ((xb && ya) || (xb)) ).
since the wiki is apparently a "void" method that has no sideeffect when
arguing against all three possibilities it is either allowed to put
comments in the "against http must section" or delete the whole section.

wkr turnguard



On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 02:33 +0100, Henry Story wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2012, at 02:09, Jürgen Jakobitsch <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at> wrote:
> 
> > hi, i'd like to add an non-goal to this, that would be to define webID
> > to fit webID+TLS. since we have no clue what authentication methods
> > there will be.
> > 
> > see 3. MUST be an HTTP(s) URI section
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/index.php?title=WebID_Definition/hash&oldid=481
> 
> Jurgen, the limitation of WebIDs to HTTP or HTTPS was discussed and agreed on by everyone at TPAC, was agreed on by everyone present a couple of weeks ago when Tim was in the room and agreed again on by every one present last week. TimBL was very clear on the limitation for http(s) URIs. So this is really no longer up for discussion. Can you please remove that counterargument from that wiki page. Thanks.
> 
> During the session with TimBL there was not so clear a consensus on #uris or not. This is what is up for discussion now. And I think we would all like to come to a consensus on this issue, and not other issues. I'd rather see people spend time deploying WebIDs than discussing this.
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> > 
> > wkr turnguard
> > 
> > On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 19:32 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >> On 11/29/12 7:25 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> >>> On 29 Nov 2012, at 22:11, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Henry Story wrote:
> >>>>> - Cleaning up the arguments for Hash ( removing irrelevant ones, organising others,
> >>>>>  standardising language, shortening to essential the points )
> >>>>>  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash
> >>>> Good idea, but I'd suggest making a new wiki page for it and leaving the working one with everybody's input as is.
> >>> Wikis are there to be edited, and the history of the wiki
> >>> is always there to be gone back to. We can link to the current
> >>> version of the wiki ( which will always be available ) from the
> >>> top as the page as the point where we started a communal exercise
> >>> of bringing things together.
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/index.php?title=WebID_Definition/hash&oldid=501
> >>> 	
> >>> I think everyone has had time to put their arguments up, and they
> >>> are mostly  very good. Good enough in  any case that I can see that
> >>> there are good points on every side, and I am not clear what the outcome
> >>> should be.
> >>> 
> >>> Some people may also have been convinced by the responses to the
> >>> arguments, and perhaps feel that they want to remove their initial
> >>> points. We could move those to a different section.
> >>> 
> >>> But the aim of the exercise is to bring this debate to a closure.
> >>> One part of this is to remove the egos from the arguments so that we can
> >>> all look at them dispassionately. We should not see this as
> >>> one team arguing against another team, but see how the arguments
> >>> function in and of themselves.
> >>> 
> >>> So now that everyone has had time to add their ideas, we can now start
> >>> to work on making more sense of the arguments.
> >>> 
> >>> Henry
> >>> 
> >>> Social Web Architect
> >>> http://bblfish.net/
> >>> 
> >> Henry,
> >> 
> >> The bottom line is that we have to make a decision based on clear goals. 
> >> As I see them, the goals are as follows:
> >> 
> >> 1. Maximum interoperability
> >> 2. Ease of implementation.
> >> 
> >> #1 might imply many implementation paths which some might find 
> >> disconcerting.
> >> 
> >> #2 might imply many implementations that fail with regards to 
> >> interoperability thereby making them:
> >> 
> >> 1. Silos
> >> 2. Politiccal FUD friendly.
> >> 
> >> As with all things about the Web (due to its underlying architecture and 
> >> design principles), these matters are "deceptively simple".
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > | Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
> > | Software Developer
> > | Semantic Web Company GmbH
> > | Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
> > | A - 1070 Wien, Austria
> > | Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22
> > 
> > COMPANY INFORMATION
> > | web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
> > | foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
> > PERSONAL INFORMATION
> > | web       : http://www.turnguard.com
> > | foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
> > | g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
> > | skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
> > | xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 

-- 
| Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
| Software Developer
| Semantic Web Company GmbH
| Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
| A - 1070 Wien, Austria
| Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22

COMPANY INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
| foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
PERSONAL INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"

Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 09:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:46 UTC