Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

On 11/2/23 8:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Quoting Kingsley Idehen (2023-11-02 13:30:36)
>
>     A WebID is just an identifier. It has to stay as just that. It
>     SHOULD resolve to a profile document, which is where things get
>     challenging.
>
>     A WebID profile document should comprise a machine-computable
>     description of its subject (named by a WebID). I encourage the use
>     of an HTML doc comprising metadata delivered as an RDF-based
>     structured data island using JSON-LD, Microdata, or Plain Old
>     Semantic (POSH).
>
>     Why is this important?
>
>     Profile documents need to be familiar to both end-users and
>     developers, the only document type that satisfies that condition
>     is HTML.
>
>     Storyline:
>
>     The self-sovereign identity and eventual privacy control journeys
>     start from a WebID that resolves (without explicit content
>     negotiation) to a profile document i.e., via a "#" based fragment
>     identifier.
>
>     Terminology:
>
>     RDF -- an abstract language for structured data expression (using
>     a variety of notations) and representation (using a variety of
>     serialization formats).
>
> Let me try rephrase the above in my own words, to check if I undertand 
> correctly (in which case I fully agree with it):
>
> A WebID is only an identifier. It is not the processing of said 
> identifiermachinery by agents, and it is consequently important to a) 
> not complicate the spec for WebID by including spec for surrounding 
> machinery, but also b) to ensure that the spec ensures the ability for 
> intended processing.
>
> The "processing" of a WebID identifier is /both/ done by human and 
> mechanical agents, and therefore it is relevant for the WebID to 
> specify targeted both those types of agents.
>
> Concretely, you suggest as a MUST to use a HTML document that MUST 
> contain RDF expressions, and that those RDF expressions SHOULD be 
> serialized in formats preferrably for both human and machine 
> consumption (but not mandate any specific serialization).
>
> Did I get that correctly?
>
>   * Jonas
>

Yep!

And for Nathan:

An implementer doesn't have the obligation to be generic; they can make 
specific choices in their implementations -- if they so chose.

-- 
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