Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2023-11-03 22:01:13)
> pá 3. 11. 2023 v 21:03 odesílatel Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> napsal:
> 
> >
> > On 11/3/23 1:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >> I'd like to just say:
> >>
> >> urn:kidehen
> >>
> >> Problem solved.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately this brakes the URN spec, because for some strange reason
> >> it's not allowed, you have to subclass it:
> >>
> >> so it has to be:
> >>
> >> urn:<something>:kidehen

Then call it urn:melvinid:kidehen

Because...

> > I am only making one fundamental point.
> >
> > A WebID is an HTTP based URI that names an Agent.  Attempting to change
> > that doesn't help the cause in anyway.

...and calling it urn:webid:kidehen would introduce a new "webid" which
is *not* "an HTTP based URI" but an URN based URI...

> Not attempting to change that.

...and you don't want to do change that current core principle of WebID.

What you *might* want to do in you solid-lite implementation is to use
some library that requires an urn as input, and *internally* in your
code - i.e. *without* involving any mention in solid-lite spec - do a
transformation of a WebID to a custom URN - e.g. s/^/urn:melvinid/


Hope that helps clarify.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private