Re: References again and other comments

Hi Dominik,

We merged in some of your changes this morning, but not all (see below).

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 7 Dec 2011, at 14:57, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see that the WebID specification is stabilizing. I think it's time to
> clean references. My comments:
> > 1. Remove N3 references (we do not use it in the spec - we talk about it
> a few weeks ago)
> > 2. Add reference to SOAP in section 2.2.1
> > 3. Add reference to HTML5 in various sections (e.g. in section 2.1.1)
> > 4. Now in spec there is RDFa reference to XHTML+RDFa 1.1. I think is
> should be changed. This can be solved in two ways:
> > 4.1. Update XHTML+RDFa ref to RDFa Core ref
> > 4.2. Near XHTML+RDFa ref add HTML+RDFa ref [1]
> > 5. Move GRDDL-PRIMER to Informative references
> > 6. Add reference to HTML version of Cert ont
>
> +1 on all that. Can update your branch to my branch in hg and then make
> those changes. I'll merge both of them then
> and pull them back into the main branch later.
>

we discussed your change from your branch in hg this morning during the
call but felt the wording of the EARL section could be expanded a little
bit, and should be discussed more on the mailing list.

Also, we didn't feel the &apos; change in
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/19a17e20739a was really necessary. Please
explain here. (this commit also includes ref changes, but it would have
been easier to have it in a separate commit (easier to merge).

There has been several other change on the main branch, so you might want
to merge it into your branch before continuing (or start from a new branch).

Steph.


>
> >
> > I have also some comments to other parts:
> > 1. Remove issue about DSA. We have RSA ont. DSA is for the later future.
> Up to January we won't be ready to develope DSA ontology
>
> ok.
>
> > 2. Remove issue about Bergi's new HTTP header. Bergi proposal is very
> interesting but it but this is in IETF competence. We need to join the
> discussion in HTTP mailing list.
>
> ok. We should keep the issue open though. it is going to be very useful. I
> propose that Bergi adds some text to a branch of his of the latest WebId
> Protocol, with his proposal, publish it on his site, and then go back to
> the HTTP list with a pointer to help them understand why we need it.
>
> > 3. I think you should add to authorization (section 3.2.5) that there is
> a lot of scenarios. You mentioned that there are true/false authorization
> and Web of Trust authorization, but there is also possible another like
> prof. Geadke and mine proposal to roles [2]. Also you can use FOAF groups
> etc.
>
> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/12/06/index-respec.html#authorization
> I say  "There are too many possibilities to list them all here."
>
> I think we are missing normative and non-normative
>
> > 4. I think that EARL tests should be added to Appendices section.
>
> Mhh. Yes, but we need to think about that a bit more. Perhaps for the next
> spec release.
>
> > 5. Because the process of our incubator group is going to end it is a
> good time to mention in the Acknowledgments section about members of the
> group.
>
> Indeed. At present most people just added themselves to the list in
> github. Some have not been that busy in the last year, others have been a
> lot more, so we need to find a way to be fair in how we recognise people.
>
>
>
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/
> > [2]
> http://d-cent.org/fsw2011/wp-content/uploads/fsw2011-WebID+ACO-A-distributed-identification-mechanism-for-social-web.pdf
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>