Re: Point of Order! - Re: WebID 1.0 -- Section 3 -- Removal of Note

On 18 February 2013 18:41, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> These kinds of messages have no place on this (or any other) list. If you
> want to withdraw from the group, just do so.
>

I think this is partly a function of not having the luxury of being in the
same room, at which point I think the conversation would have been very
different.

Having checked the hg, the 303 note was there from the very first draft.
It may have saved time were this pointed out earlier.

Henry / Kingsley be nice, I know you both actually like each other, but
that may not come across on email!

I think we're resolved to move this towards a vote at next telecon, if Ted
can perhaps make the issue clearer


>
> M.
>
> On Mon 2013-Feb-18, at 17:33, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2/18/13 12:13 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> >> I would really appreciate Kingsley if you started debating on the
> points,
> >> without making up facts, and  stop your ad hominem attacks on whoever
> >> you disagreed with. Your personal attacks only harm you and your
> company's
> >> reputation, and do nothing to help us move forard.
> >
> > Henry,
> >
> > I am going to tell you this one last time, I will not stand for your
> nonsense.
> >
> > OpenLink Software is a W3C member. Our membership isn't gratis.
> >
> > I will soon withdraw OpenLink Software from participation in this effort
> if you remain the chair. Please don't push me any further.
> >
> >
> > Kingsley
> >>
> >> Your attack on the editors, in the text below is just one case of
> unacceptable
> >> behavior that has become more and more regular in recent months.
> >>
> >> On 18 Feb 2013, at 17:41, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/13 11:13 AM, Michael Hackett wrote:
> >>>> On 17 February 2013 17:18, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> We use hash URIs in all our examples, and people who are new to WebID
> and looking at implementing this will use hash URIs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to echo what Mo said, people won't use them if they don't know
> what they are, or rather why they are used. To someone just looking at
> WebID as a distributed identity system, who might have lots of experience
> building web sites (or maybe not so much), but no experienced with Linked
> Data, the hashes don't stand out as significant. I think it would be very
> helpful if the spec included a brief explanation of their use and a link to
> more in-depth reading. (Don't just point to a long external document, as
> developers will not be compelled to read a long doc if they don't
> immediately see the value.)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Links from a prior posts in this thread:
> >>>
> >>> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0029.html-- TimBL presentation link (covers indirection via hash and hashless URIs;
> note that the hashless slide has a few typos that leads to confusion)
> >>>
> >>> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0060.html-- provided references to materials that address the tradeoffs associated
> with either style of HTTP URI in the context of Linked Data.
> >>>
> >>> All:
> >>>
> >>> For those of you that don't understand my fundamental frustration with
> Henry (as Chair) and Andrei (as Editor) it boils down to this:
> >>> They are selective and obstructive when dealing with responses that
> differ from theirs. For instance, they reacted to the vote on the
> definition of a WebID by inserting an unnecessary notice.
> >>
> >> You are making things up Kingsley here as you have ben throughout this
> disussion about the properties of 303s.
> >>
> >> It is easy to proove this. Just go to the Mercurial repository where
> you will find the full history of the spec
> >>
> >>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/log/tip/spec/identity-respec.html
> >>
> >> Then if you take the spec from three weeks ago, before we did any of
> the updates
> >> ( but just after changing the https:// problems due to W3Cs switch
> over to Mercurial
> >> you will find the version of the spec here:
> >>
> >>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/016d0bd59833/spec/identity-respec.html
> >>
> >> You will see that it states
> >>
> >> [[
> >> HTTP 303 redirects should be avoided (needs further discussion). Since
> WebIDs contain a URI fragment identifier, it is not nessary to use HTTP 303
> redirects in order to make the difference between the identifier and the
> document it points to; the relationship becomes obvious.
> >> ]]
> >>
> >> You will see that this text was even in the December version.
> >>
> >> All we did since then is shorten this text and adapt it some way
> towards what we thought
> >> would be acceptable given the vote we had to allow 303 redirects [1]
> But then you started
> >> this huge thread on this issue, bullying your way around with
> accusations on pretty
> >> much everyone who did not agree with you.
> >>
> >> I have stated a few times that I think we can improve the wording of
> what is there. But
> >> we certainly did not ADD a notice. We adapted it as per requirement of
> previous vote.
> >> We just did not go all the way to where you wanted it to go.
> >>
> >> We furthermore have a process that we are following to get to the
> bottom of this
> >> as I explained today
> >>
> >>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0225.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Henry
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/51933/webid-hash/
> >>
> >>>
> >>> How should this have been addressed, if this was genuinely about
> clarity as opposed to a backdoor mechanism for negating the vote? They
> could have done exactly what's outlined above, add links to relevant
> documents that cover the different types of HTTP URIs and their usage
> implications. Even better, they could have looked to the following document
> collection to really make things clear:
> >>>
> >>> 1. WebID -- definition document.
> >>> 2. WebID oriented Profile Document -- defines the fundamental
> characteristics of a WebID oriented profile document.
> >>> 3. WebID oriented Profile Document publishing -- how to publish said
> document (a natural place to shed light on HTTP URI choices) .
> >>> 4. WebID authentication protocol -- defines the WebID+TLS protocol
> that's used to verify a WebID based on its association with a WebID profile
> document.
> >>>
> >>> 1-4 would be cross referenced using their respective URLs from the
> relevant documents.
> >>>
> >>> Here are some important points about Linked Data:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Linked Data is about Data Representation and Access that leverages
> RDF, HTTP, and core architecture of the Web.
> >>> 2. HTTP URIs in this context have tradeoffs that affect consumers,
> publishers, and agents that oscillate between either role.
> >>> 3. Implementing a Linked Data solution is fundamental to understanding
> its many nuances.
> >>> 4. Demonstrating Linked Data comprehension is best done via Links.
> >>>
> >>> Ironically, I've been through this loop with RDF/XML, and today RDF is
> finally (12+ years later) decoupled from that classic example of conflation
> gone wrong. The only thing you get from failure to separate powers is
> confusion that ultimately compromises the fundamental goal i.e., in this
> case: leveraging Linked Data en route                 to producing a spec
> for Web-scale verifiable identity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To conclude, a W3C community effort isn't about the personal
> preferences a chair person or editors. It's about a communal effort to
> fashion a spec.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, Pacific Quay, Glasgow, G51 1DA
> Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>
>