- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:29:24 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org Group" <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJg4c1TXLemULx=fzKVXvME0AkK1gAEPc+sWH6tQVYFEg@mail.gmail.com>
On 30 November 2012 12:19, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > Alexandre, > > a couple of weeks ago you put forward the following requirements you had > for WebID > > [[ > 1. one MUST be able to change one's WebID > Given that a WebID is just a string of characters, what does changing a WebID mean? > 2. one MUST distinguish a WebID (a simple URI for a Web Resource) from a > WebID Profile (the Web Information Resource). This SHOULD not rely on > dereferencing. > 3. the system MUST take efficiency into account > 4. the system MUST not introduce any incompatibility with LDP, > especially for Write operations > 5. the Web Profile MUST define a default representation format > 6. the system SHOULD considerer legacy WebIDs (or FOAF/SSL) whenever > possible > ]] > > As a first step to coming to a consensus on ISSUE-70 [1] I would like to > know why these are not compatible with be with the SHOULD position [2] > > Let me go through this for the SHOULD position. > > (1) one must be able to change one's WebID > > it seems to me that all solutions allow one to change one's WebID. If > someone has a 303 redirect, > then they can change the 303 to a 301 moved permanently. Same follows if > it is a document, right? > > (2) one MUST distinguish a WebID ( a simple URI for a Web Resource ) from > a WebID profile. > > I think both 303 solutions and 200 solutions can make that distinction. > They just go about it differently. > The 303 URL just points to a document, which is the profile. > > (2a) This SHOULD not rely on dereferencing. > > The SHOULD position [2] says that WebIDs are http URIs that SHOULD have > a #fragment . If it SHOULD have a #fragment, then applications that don't > have hash fragments are ones that are not doing what they SHOULD. When we > are looking at those that do what they SHOULD we see that the distinction > between the WebID and the Profile does not rely on dereferencing. > > (3) The system MUST take efficiency into account > > The solution [2] takes it into account by specifying how things SHOULD > be done. > > (4) the system MUST not introduce any incompatibility with LDP, > especially for Write operations > > The solution [2] does not introduce any incompatibilities with LDP. LDP > I suppose states that if you > write to a WebID profile ( and of course if you are allowed to) then you > can write there. > > (5) the Web Profile MUST define a default representation format > > I think we have done that, by syncing with Turtle and the LDP decision. > > (6) the system SHOULD considerer legacy WebIDs (or FOAF/SSL) whenever > possible > > The SHOULD position does that, by allowing that WebIDs that don't do > what they SHOULD are not excluded by the MUST language. Clearly > implementations will need to be flexible to deal with the WebIDs that exist > out there already. > > So if you can live with solution [2], then perhaps that brings us > closer to some consensus. > > Henry > > [1] now opened > https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/70 > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash#2._MUST_be_HTTP_uri_and_SHOULD_be_an_HTTP.28s.29_hash_.28.23.29_URI > > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > >
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 12:29:59 UTC