Re: any volunteers to chair the webid cg?

Hi Sebastian,

On 11/8/23 2:44 PM, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
>
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> On 11/8/23 20:26, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>> On 11/8/23 2:05 PM, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am considering to apply as chair at the moment. I previously was 
>>> involved in the RDB2RDF XG Group that lead to R2RML, then the W3C 
>>> standards ITS-2.0  and SHACL as well as previously chairing the 
>>> BPMLOD Community Group [1]. However,  before I apply, I would like 
>>> to clarify 1. goals as well as the 2. the WebID definition.
>>>
>>> Especially 2. definition is a hard blocker IMHO. There seems to be a 
>>> lot of confusion about every point here and the lack of foundation 
>>> seems to make it very difficult to reach consensus in any way (also 
>>> lack of clear goals and defined use cases).
>>>
>>> # What is a WebID?
>>>
>>> Maybe we can start with a simple question. Regarding 
>>> https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html does WebID require 
>>> point 1 , 1&2  or 1&2&3.
>>>
>>> I would probably consider point 1 to be sufficient as identification 
>>> and even allow URNs.  Although, the "Web" in WebID implies that it 
>>> SHOULD or MUST be on the web.
>>
>> Yes, the "Web" in "WebID" is all about HTTP. That was always the 
>> fundamental intention i.e., harness the same protocol that drives the 
>> ubiquitous Web.
>>
>> The magic of the Web is easily harnessed via "#" based fragment 
>> identifiers when it comes to naming things.
>
> Ok, so you would vote for 1 & 2:  Use URIs as names for things & Use 
> HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.
>

Yes.


> 1. Is there consensus about 1 & 2?
>

No idea, but if the above is open for debate we cannot be talking about 
a WebID i.e., it has to be something else.


> 2. Would the standard gain from being based on 1, i.e. is there a use 
> case, where you would access URNs e.g. via SPARQL?
>

No. Remember, we do have a NetID which isn't HTTP specific for Agent 
naming. We've had that implemented in Virtuoso for eons now.


> 3. What about 3:  When someone looks up a URI, provide useful 
> information, using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)?
>

That's point to stay away from, since SPARQL is an implementation detail 
and at the time of those guidelines from TimBL RDF was conflated with 
RDF/XML and the like (by most of the world audience).


> 4. Isn't HTTPS a MUST? or is it optional?
>

Should really be optional.


> 4. Is WebID returning a 401 Unauthorized acceptable or not?
>

You mean a WebID-Profile document returning a 401. Anyway, the answer is 
no i.e., unacceptable .


-- 
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