Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 10:49, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If one specific RDF serialization would be mandated, I can say already
> now that we would not support such WebID spec. Our servers can produce
> any format Jena supports, plus HTML, for every RDF resource, so that
> would not be possible even if we wanted to.
>

Do you already support the current WebID 1.x spec?  Because it mandates
turtle right now:

"must be available as text/turtle [turtle], but may be available in other
RDF serialization formats"


>
> Top Linked Data researchers pretending not to understand content
> negotiation raises my eyebrows. It has been a feature of HTTP since
> forever.
>
> The effort to dumb down RDF Linked Data to make it more accessible to
> some mythical "developers" continues to amaze me. Those developers
> most likely do not even need Linked Data as they don't have the sort
> of problems it addresses.
> We shouldn't be looking at easy solutions, we should be looking at
> first principles and the *right* solutions.
>
>
> Martynas
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 2:23 AM Sebastian Hellmann
> <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> >
> > 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 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>