Re: Web Identity and Discovery - WebID 1.0

On 8 Feb 2013, at 01:07, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 2/7/13 6:53 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2013, at 00:47, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2/7/13 6:42 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>> On 8 Feb 2013, at 00:38, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/7/13 6:14 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>> On 8 Feb 2013, at 00:09, Erich Bremer <erich@ebremer.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1  - The redirect performance statement is confusing to the specification document and should be removed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Whether I use SSD hard drives or mechanical hard drives will also affect the performance of my WebID implementation, but that fact doesn't belong in the specification either, nor does the redirect performance warning.  - Erich
>>>>>> Whether you use SSD hard drives or a slow modem is ony accidentally related to the
>>>>>> efficiency of fetching the Personal profile Document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 303 redirect is essentially related to the efficiency of fetching the profile.
>>>>>> There is no possible world in which you can make fetching a a 303 redirected
>>>>>> document not require one more request to the server.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is quite surprising that this seems so difficult to understand. I think we may
>>>>>> need to make this a lot clearer in the spec.
>>>>> Henry,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It has nothing to do with spec clarity, so please remove this from the spec. You can make a related document about your disputed 303 concerns outside the spec. If you won't take our guidance, then conduct a poll.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A WebID is an HTTP URI. That's it.
>>>> And we are not denying that.
>>> But you are trying to force an item into the spec that's already been rejected. The warning notice is a roundabout way of forcing the issue re. hash based HTTP URIs.
>> Can you please open an issue on this and follow the procedure.
>> We are not forcing anything, since we are not contradicting the defintion.
>> We are making a factual point which is a simple consequence of the definition.
>> 
>> It can be written out better I agree. And that's what I'd like to take up as a next topic.
>> 
>>> Again, please drop the notice and stick to hash based HTTP URIs in examples and promotional material. That's the solution that will work and enable all of us return to the more important task of building and interop testing our respective Linked Data and WebID solutions.
>> When we go to the W3C standardisation people will ask us why we don't say anyting about the 303 redirect,
>> and only write about the hash version. Clearly we need to do both, now that we have both in the spec.
> 
> You don't need to open that in the spec. The spec should simply cover:
> 
> 1. what is a WebID?
> 2. why is it important?
> 3. how do I use it?
> 
> As with all docs, you can cross reference other material relating to Linked Data and HTTP URIs [1]. Net effect, the WebID spec is concise and devoid of distraction vectors.

The definitions covers the relation between the WebID and the Profile. That is
the core of what WebID is about. As a result the 303 is an important part of
the spec. 

> 
>> 
>> I am looking for proposals on text to write this.
>> 
>>> Let's not open up a new and unproductive distraction.
>> This distraction is a consquence of your wanting to open up the scope of the WebID defintion
>> to 303s.
> 
> Really.

yes.

> 
>>  We could have had it simple with the restriction to hash uris.
> 
> That's the minority view shared by yourself and Andrei.

No it is a fact that we could have had it simple by restricting the
definition. 

A number of people including Tim Berners Lee were pushing for
such a scope restriction. In fact it was even voter for
by one of your own Open Link employees present at TPAC.

In this vote, I voted for all three solutions, though 
I gave preference to the first because it keeps things simple.

>> 
>> Now we need to tell more about the difference.
> 
> You don't, this is simply a case of you and Andrei refusing to accept what's been clearly expressed via a democratic process.

As said before the process covered the definitions which you will find
in the corresponding part of the spec as requested in the vote:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html#terminology

[[
WebID
A WebID is a URI with an HTTP or HTTPS scheme which denotes an Agent (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.). For WebIDs with fragment identifiers (e.g. #me), the URI without the fragment denotes the Profile Document. For WebIDs without fragment identifiers an HTTP request on the WebID must return a 303 with a Location header URI referring to the Profile Document.

WebID Profile or Profile Document
A WebID Profile is an RDF document which must uniquely describe the Agent denoted by the WebID in relation to that WebID. This document mustbe available as Turtle [TURTLE-TR]. This document may be available in other RDF serialization formats, such as RDFa [RDFA-CORE], RDF/XML [RDF-PRIMER], or N3 [N3] if so requested through content negotiation. Any other serializations must be transformable automatically and in a standard manner to an RDF Graph, using technologies such as GRDDL [GRDDL-PRIMER].
]]


> 
> Here's another suggestion. Rather than conclude that the WebID spec is simpler with your controversial notice, why not wait for actual feedback from others about the need for such clarification?

We are waiting for you to open an issue and propose some text for the section "The WEbID HTTP URI"

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html#the-webid-http-uri

But this is as I said another issue.  

Henry


> 
> Links:
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/ -- Cool URIs note .
> [2] http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc10 -- Linked Data URIs and Entity Names.
> 
> Kingsley
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>>> Kingsley
>>>> Henry
>>>> 
>>>>> Kingsley
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Erich Bremer
>>>>>>> http://www.ebremer.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 02/06/13 9:39 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/6/13 6:39 AM, Andrei Sambra 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>>>> Why do you still have this warning:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Implementers are highly encouraged to use hash URIs for the WebID HTTP URI. Even though 303 redirects have been used in the past, experience has shown that they can be difficult to deploy and can have an impact on performance. However WebID Verifiers must not fail when dereferencing hashless URIs, though they may flag them as potentially impacting on performance."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You don't need that piece of confusion. The examples can be hashed based and just leave it at that.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I thought this matter was completely closed based on the vote i.e.:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1. A WebID is a HTTP URI
>>>>>>>> 2. Use hash based HTTP URIs in all examples.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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/
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> 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/
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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/