Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

Yes.

curl -k -H "Accept: text/turtle"
https://kgdev.net/admin/acl/agents/9b0674c0-6904-11ec-aa02-1239e594f8ef/

This reminds me of something that is probably underspecified in the
current draft, namely that the Agent and the PublicKey can in
principle be in separate RDF documents.

On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:30 AM Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

Received on Sunday, 23 January 2022 11:06:31 UTC