Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

A side note on the paper, if there's time enough for formatting before the deadline, you could embed RDFa in the formatting.
See for instance what we've done for a previous submission

http://www.w3.org/2008/09/msnws/papers/trustprivacy.html

Alex.

On 25 Apr 2011, at 09:21, Alexandre Passant wrote:

> References: <1559bb7f8ba15e20e648de2f609bce7e.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <1507359E-4F66-49EA-B2A9-429FB9DE763D@bblfish.net> <4DAEE879.8080205@openlinksw.com> <989E50EB-B187-4D59-B047-4343BD358A43@deri.org> <DAC9B75B-77D0-4BBE-96EC-3BFC0A5E9935@bblfish.net> <4DAFF837.3020205@w3.org> <76D25FB9-E9C7-4AF4-8950-306A024CE0C9@bblfish.net> <2FA3E257-2682-45C3-A0E8-7F8326DBEC73@deri.org> <53347F84-2D6A-4FDB-9574-96D3CB47518C@bblfish.net> <EE9E001B-E2BC-4F2A-84C7-842F4A912109@deri.org> <2d1cf5f702b6478c332fcad463629dd8.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <9FE8CBE3-9025-494A-B356-5FCB5F791259@deri.org> <22b0972420a04f7ee033d3e92f462788.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <84350444-9F91-4903-B799-4E7F72E63D75@bblfish.net> <BANLkTinLLBTaARtae0eeyYJ+OYS+MGn7Rw@m ail.gmail.com> <SNT143-ds19C9ACB7112101459875E992940@phx.gbl> <4DB2FADB.6000409@openlinksw. com> <82caa774c884d2224a2c6c4e39eaa9e9.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <3898D462-D699-49B7-AC98-F360EAF5C59E@bblfish.net> <118a7e80c78c484851b3583e576cf508.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <9AE6E32B-F6B2-4399-B5A3-E1930ED81116@bblfish.net>
> To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
> Return-Path: alexandre.passant@deri.org
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2011 07:21:43.0439 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D9419F0:01CC0319]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think we should mention in the advantages how easy it is to create a WebID. I added a comment about it on the doc.
> Overall, the paper should also mention that WebID is currently worked on in a W3C XG (listing organisations - that also gives more weight to the proposal) and should end with a proposal. E.g. WeID XG are happy to work closely with browser vendors and Webservices developers, providing opensource toolikts (they should be linked somewhere), etc.
> 
> A reference to the FSW XG would also be appropriate 
> 
> Alex. 
> 
> On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:33, Henry Story wrote:
> 
>> Agree on all below.
>> 
>> The version I was editing is here, if it makes it easier to see the diffs:
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YMY_UEIuZzZRvPem5cWg1DuC5FqN2DejOBYPX_51q7s/edit?hl=en&authkey=CI7q4cIC
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> 
>> On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:29, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 19:08, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>>>>> Thus, WebID is not just for the Web.
>>> 
>>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 1:21 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>> Agree, but one should pause at the word "just" here. It makes me wonder:
>>>>> what else do we have that is bigger? It's a bit like saying Bill Gates
>>> is just
>>>>> rich....
>>> 
>>> Removing 'just' from my sentence would not make any sense. The point is
>>> that WebID has a practical role beyond the Web (big W). The Internet is
>>> bigger than the Web platform. Non-webby protocols can harness the power of
>>> WebID.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway, when talking to browser vendors and builders, one should presume
>>>>> that their
>>>>> interest lies focused in the space just encompassed by this technology.
>>>>> :-)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Of course. The workshop is targeting browser vendors. Therefore, the
>>> browser-based Internet. As I've said several times before in this thread,
>>> our position paper thus needs to be Web (big W) focused.
>>> 
>>> I assumed Kingsley was making a larger point and not referring
>>> specifically to our position paper. That is the downside to threaded email
>>> discussions that tend to snake around, periodically going off topic a bit.
>>> It can sometimes be hard to know what topic is being discussed. :)
>>> 
>>> BTW, why have we stopped using Google Docs? I assumed that you were just
>>> exporting an HTML version for people's reference and that we would
>>> continue our edits in Google Docs. It is impossible for anyone else to
>>> make corrections to the document in its present format.
>>> 
>>> I would say that at this stage, with the exception of a few edits and
>>> proofreading corrections, we are beginning to nitpick with the paper's
>>> details. Remember, *all* this paper needs to do is earn us a presentation
>>> invite. It does not need to be perfect in all respects with regards to
>>> describing WebID. We can go into more detail, be more precise, or paint a
>>> bigger picture in our 20-minute talk.
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>> 
>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 17:58:00 UTC