On 10/22/12 8:50 AM, Harry Halpin wrote: > > Again, I think a good approach towards WebID CG is to say "Here is > what use-cases its good at (you control a URI, you like FOAF and the > SemWeb, you want a public profile), here's what use-cases its not good > at or specialized at (linkability, UI, etc.)" rather than attempt to > paint WebID as a silver bullet across as many mailing lists as > possible. Realistically, most standards and techniques have > trade-offs. Whether or not industry or users agree with your > particular trade-offs determines the success of the standard in my > experience. I've encouraged anyone that will listen not to pain WebID as a silver bullet. It's a critical piece of the picture, but not the entire picture. > > Good luck! Again, there's some good ideas in WebID, there's some ideas > that I personally think are good (stronger authentication) but > unlikely to be adopted by industry (such as FOAF), open problems > (multiple devices) and there's some ideas I don't personally agree > with (approach of WebID to linkability and URIs) but happy to see > other people use if they if they have different use-cases. I think we are reaching a critical beachead with Ben. I am also confident WebID IG and RWW community groups will be encouraged by this beachead. Ultimately, I am even confident that we are going to solve this problem. As I said, all we need to do is just get a long and process feedback. Live demonstrations (where possible) should always be used to substantiate claims. We do that, and as I said, we are going to solve this problem :-) -- 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
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 13:46:28 UTC