On 6 Feb 2013, at 13:47, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6 February 2013 12:39, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com> wrote: > As promised, I have updated the spec according to the latest poll results. I've also cleaned it up a little, mainly fixing inconsistencies with some terms. > > I would like to ask everyone to take a look and see if everything is ok before we move to WebID-TLS. > > Here is the link to the latest version: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html > > Minor thing: > foaf:name > The name of the individual or agent. > foaf:knows > The WebID URI of a known person. > foaf:weblog > The person or agent's blog URI > I would keep name and knows in the example but rather have depiction, rather than, weblog, as this is a common identifier in modern social networks. Additionally mbox is often a good thing to have, tho there may be some privacy issues on that one. > > You're right. It's much more useful to have an example with foaf:img (updated the spec). If only people would use it instead of displaying the WebID URI after login. ;) Is there a relation that says that something is the editor of a page, or that it controls it? Then it is easy to minially get a uniquely describing page by adding <#me> contollerOf <> . That is whoever controls this page is the agent referred to by <#me> . As it happens that description would also be acceptable from the privacy point of view, as it certainly does not reveal that much. Henry > > > > Best, > Andrei > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:49 UTC