- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:03:10 -0400
- To: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53C80FDE.6020107@openlinksw.com>
On 7/17/14 11:00 AM, Seth Russell wrote: > How does "facebook serve WebID" ? How does G+ not serve WebID ? A WebID is an HTTP URI that denotes an Agent. Every Web hosted Social Media service or network denotes it members using a WebID. Kingsley > > seth > > the #toothlessfoodie <https://plus.google.com/s/%23toothlessfoodie> > Facebook: facebook.com/russell.seth <http://facebook.com/russell.seth> > Blog: fastblogit.com/seth/ <http://fastblogit.com/seth/> > Talking products: www.speaktomecatalog.com > <http://www.speaktomecatalog.com> > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > On 17 July 2014 15:53, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org > <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote: > > On 07/17/2014 08:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > On 7/16/14 8:01 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > Maybe worthwhile, but there's a real cost. > > > > >The cost is a perception. The real cost > calculation should be based on > >the dearth of WebID-* implementations, since > inception. Add that to all > > > >time spent explaining what WebID-* is about, > after all of these years. > > > > I think there are several reasons WebID and WebID-TLS > have seen only meager adoption. I don't think what > the specs say about RDF syntaxes are a big part of that. > > - Sandro > > > And what are these issues that are unrelated to RDF? The > UI/UX misconceptions swirling around TLS CCA (Client > Certificate Authentication) as implemented by browsers? > > > I didn't say unrelated to RDF.... > > I'm not sure how to answer your question without being quite > negative. Please understand I'm so critical because I think > decentralized identity is vital. > > Yes, the UI browsers provide for client certs is a huge > barrier. Until we all understand why that UI is so bad, or > web-crypto provides a workaround, WebID-TLS has no chance. > > The lack of clarity over what WebID actually is and WebID-TLS > actually is, those form a huge barrier. > > The social style and modes of this group are a huge barrier. > I hope I'm wrong, but my sense is this group has operated with > an attitude of "we've got the solution", instead of "here are > some use cases and some technologies which can address them," > and making bridges to other people working on related problems. > > httpRange-14 (and the resulting HashURIs) is a huge, huge barrier. > > The reliance on RDF details and FOAF details is a huge > barrier. JSON-LD and a new vocabulary (not foaf) could address > this. > > I think to move forward will require forming a happy working > relationship with the kinds of folks who love h-card and maybe > Mozilla Persona. That will probably require bending on all of > the above. If that can be achieved, then there might be a > chance for WebID. > > If LDP would have put JSON-LD and Turtle on equal > standing, why can't this happen to WebID-* which hasn't > even got anywhere close to the formal status of LDP? > > > All I was arguing on that front was that there is value to > getting everyone to agree on one syntax or at least a very > small number of syntaxes. I was replying to people > suggesting it's fine for WebID dereference to return pretty > much any syntax one wants, trying to point out allowing such > proliferation of syntaxes is actually a huge problem. > > I'm certainly NOT saying that by W3C procedure it's too late > to change! (WebID isn't even to the point in W3C process > where there are any procedures, I suspect.) > > > I simply want adoption of these efforts. Thus, anything > that leads to broader adoption is good. Basing any RDF > based spec on a single notation via MUST always leads to > the same adoption-inertia generating misconceptions. > > > I don't happen to agree. Or perhaps I don't understand. > > Maybe you can explain this adoption-inertia idea in terms of > the web's initial common image formats, GIF and JPEG? > Things were very simple in the days of only gif. But gifs > were too darn big, so we needed jpeg. Fortunately, browsers > implemented support for both, so content providers could pick > which ever they wanted. There were certainly other options > (tiff? xbm? bmp?) but they were not widely implemented in the > browsers, so content providers didn't use them. (I was > recently looking at a web page I made in about '93 where for > each image I provided links to the jpeg and the gif, because > one still couldn't assume everyone could see both.) > > Things worked out fairly smoothly and fairly quickly because > there was a small number of browser providers. > > If there had been 1000 equal size browser vendors, and some > went with tiff and some xbm and some bmp, etc, we would have > had a real problem. > > I think with linked data clients, we're kind of still in that > territory. Without some sense of which formats folks should > actually use, they could well become hopelessly fragmented, eg > with some people one reading and writing RDF/XML, some only > reading/writing Turtle, etc. > > Yes, eventually people will figure it out and coalesce around > a couple of the most common, but why not save that hassle when > there's consensus up front about which those are? > > As per my response to Andrei, for now, adding JSON-LD > examples to the relevant WebID-* documents is a useful > tweak that will at the very least get more JSON oriented > developers to look at WebID-*. > > > I completely agree. Personally, I'd be fine with giving > JSON-LD equal status to Turtle. > > Actually, I think probably the best option is mandating > publication in JSON-LD and RDFa, in both cases with a syntax > that hides the IRIs as much as possible. > > We need to also be clear about how simple and small > relying-party code can be. Maybe we can say it has to > include both a JSON-LD and an RDFa parser, in which case we > could say that identity-providers only need to provide one or > the other. > > We can do better in regards to managing the non technical > aspects of open standards adoption. First step boils down > to be more accommodating of other notations for > representing RDF statements. You can reduce the > adoption-inertia generating effects of MUST via lots of > examples that render it moot, so to speak. > > > (as above) > > > Agree with a lot of these points, but let me add: > > There are more WebIDs out there than any other identity system, > since facebook serve WebID. > > WebID + TLS is a nice experiment and useful as a proof of concept, > and very useful for testing, but I dont think anyone ever expected > it to get a billion users. > > We need to do a lot more work on interoperabilty and demos before > people can really see the value added. > > > Yours in service to a more decentralized Web, > > -- Sandro > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 18:03:33 UTC