Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

On 1/21/22 7:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Sebastian Hellmann (2022-01-22 00:21:49)
>> Hi Jonas,
>>
>> a question: I am having trouble finding the current spec. Also I can not
>> find anything about NetID. See more inline.
> Current draft of the WebID spec is this:
> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/
>
> NetID is a superset of WebID defined by Kingsley Idehen:
> https://www.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.openlinksw.com%2Foplweb%2Fglossary-term%2FNetID%23this&graph=urn%3Adata%3Aopenlink%3Aglossary


Hi Jonas,

Thank you!

Even I forgot about our glossary [1] :)

We can certainly flesh out additional information via said glossary.

Related Links

[1] https://github.com/OpenLinkSoftware/glossaries -- Github Repo


Kingsley

>
>
>> On 21.01.22 17:49, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Quoting Sebastian Hellmann (2022-01-21 17:29:46)
>>>> I would argue for a more clear definition of what the webID
>>>> publisher should/must provide, simply to prevent wiggle space.
>>> So would you find it acceptable that the WebID spec states that
>>> publishers SHOULD provide JSON-LD serialization of the RDF data (and
>>> consumers SHOULD be capable of parsing JSON-LD)?
>>>
>>> ...since that is the position held by (at least) Kingsley Idehen and
>>> Aaron Coburn and me.
>> That is not enough in my opinion and I am picking up some points from
>> Aaron's email. JSON-LD is a moving target. My point is maybe not
>> making JSON-LD default/mandatory, but to make it mandatory that
>> JSON-LD does not become a pain for "builders" (see Kingsley's mail).
> Oh well.
>
> I understand your desire to simplify, I really do.
>
> Ruben Verborgh also wrote about that desire in his latest blog entry:
> https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2021/12/23/reflections-of-knowledge/
>
> He links to a single paragraph by Dan Brickley and Libby Miller, about
> that complexity issue: https://book.validatingrdf.com/bookHtml005.html
>
> Let me quote here the first two sentences of that paragraph:
>
>> People think RDF is a pain because it is complicated. The truth is
>> even worse. RDF is painfully simplistic, but it allows you to work
>> with real-world data and problems that are horribly complicated.
>
> I really wish you would agree that we should not _mandate_ but only
> _recommend_ serialization of RDF.  We cannot possibly decide which
> format is "best" - only what is "more popular currently", which is
> unlikely to last.
>
> Kingsley calls it NetID so that stuff not strictly fitting some trend
> can still be treated as "valid".
>
> I want us to use the well-known term "WebID" for that purpose.  Kingsley
> is tired of trying make that happen.  Please don't prove him right.
>
>
>   - Jonas
>

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
               http://kidehen.blogspot.com

Profile Pages:
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
         : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this