Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

so 4. 11. 2023 v 0:50 odesílatel Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> napsal:

> 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/
>

It's just urn and a namespace within the urn system.  It could be called
anything.  Entirely orthogonal to the WebID spec.

I certainly would bring it to the group, as a work item, but with more
explanation.  I've noted the pushback and deprioritized it in any case.

It's a matter for the IETF, not the W3C, in any case.


>
>
> 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