Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

Hi Jonas,

On 22.01.22 01:09, 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/

Are you sure that this is a spec? I see it as an inspirational document 
on how a spec could look like, if you spent the effort to work on it.

I saw that you forked the spec into github, but I would actually propose 
to start from scratch and just do cherry picking from this document. 
When we implemented it, we had to rely mostly on personal experience and 
things we remembered from Henry Story's presentations, when he was on 
WebID tour over a decade ago, AKSW people and OpenLink docu.

See .e.g:

"3. The WebID HTTP URI"  -> Is HTTPS not mandatory? Will we be able to 
move forward by including HTTP in any form?

"There are two solutions that meet our requirements for identifying 
real-world objects: 303 redirects and hash URIs." -> how do 303 
redirects identify real-world objects? URIs that resolve to 303? hash 
URIs might also resolve to 303.

"Personal details are the most common requirement when registering an 
account with a website. Some of these pieces of information include an 
e-mail address, a name and perhaps an avatar image, expressed using the 
FOAF [FOAF] vocabulary. This section includes properties that SHOULD be 
used when conveying key pieces of personal information but are NOT 
REQUIRED to be present in a WebID Profile:"

<#me> a owl:Thing.

1. Hash URI ✅
2. Turtle   ✅
These are all MUST requirements, I could find. Doesn't even need the 
foaf:PersonalProfileDocument declaration,  so ✅ valid WebID

"5.4 Privacy" -> is this in scope of "how to publish WebIDs"?

> 6. Processing the WebID Profile: The Requesting Agent needs to fetch 
> the document, if it does not have a valid one in cache. 

> It is recommended that the Requesting Agent 
> <https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/#dfn-requesting_agent> 
> sets a /qvalue/ for |text/turtle| in the HTTP |Accept-Header| with a 
> higher priority than in the case of |application/xhtml+xml| or 
> |text/html|, as sites may produce HTML without RDFa markup but with a 
> link to graph encoded in a pure RDF format such as Turtle. For an 
> agent that can parse Turtle, rdf/xml and RDFa, the following would be 
> a reasonable Accept header: |Accept: 
> text/turtle,application/rdf+xml,application/xhtml+xml;q=0.8,text/html;q=0.7|

<rhetorical>What?</rhetorical>

-- Sebastian