Re: a remark on the webid spec

Makes perfect sense to me.

Mischa
On 14 Dec 2011, at 03:31, Peter Williams wrote:

> THe cut below is the critical issue (for me).
>  
> as it stands, Im being totally anal in how I make a blog entry that does X so a webid validator can confirm I control the key/URI. And, that means stuff a minimal graph in the post, that is not even a foaf card (really). Its missing classes, document types, and lots of other foafy things.
>  
> But, as it stands, the semantics of validation do NOT require that that one tests for foaf profile/document'ness. All that matters is that some triples exist on a web endpoint.
>  
> NOw, I know how Henry is thinking - as a war-weary warrior. He is suiting the likes of me - who as newby consumer doesnt understand, never will understand, doen't even relaly want to understand, and wants only to cut and paste some HTMl from one txt file to another. AS it stands, he met that goal (and thus addressed how most of the population think).
>  
> At the same time time, Ive called for more semweb-ness - so the non-rich semweb he has given us (fitting cut and paste culture) can compete with an xpath query. This means bringin IN some of the higher design features.
>  
> My gut feeling is that i do NOT want to have to deliver an full PPD  in my blog post. Its too much like fiddling around with vcards, or X.500 entries. I just want to post a little graph. At the same time, i want the spec to have several "extended" graph examples that showcase how to "do a little more", optionaly. Kingley's examp[le was perfect. Addressing the need for the lifecycle management process (over controlled URIs), he was able to show how to use owl:sameAs so reasoning could handle synonyms (and thus address impact of URI change on ACLs).
>  
> I want MORE of those, and not to have to adoption an entire paradigm shift  in the world of identity management.
>  
> Tough to find the right balance. But, I feel (for almost the first time) folks are at least now "engineering" - by trying to find JUST that right balance. THe key is to showcase those more advanced features of reasoning that deliver the message that a linked data client can add some value - and can do so without requiring a huge infrastructure shift.
>  
> 
>  
> From: mischa@mmt.me.uk
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:33:39 +0000
> CC: pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr
> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: a remark on the webid spec
> you could add a GRAPH verb or a FROM NAMED and make sure that the primaryTopic of a foaf Document is making that claim. 
> 
> something like below perhaps: 
> PREFIX : <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
> PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
> PREFIX xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
> ASK {
>    GRAPH ?g {
>     ?g foaf:primaryTopic ?webid .
>      ?webid a foaf:Person . 
>       ?webid :key [
>          :modulus ?mod;
>          :exponent ?exp;
>       ] .
>    }
> }
> But yeah great work on the spec people! 
> 
> Mischa
> 
> On 12 Dec 2011, at 14:24, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> having a look at the WebID spec, I spotted a few mistakes in the RDF/XML
> example:
> 
> * the rdfs namespace is not declared
> * the closing tag for rdfs:label misses the leading '/'
> * the datatypes xsd:hexBinary and xsd:integer should be expanded URIs,
> not CURIEs
> 
> best
> 
>  pa
> 
> _____________________________
> Mischa Tuffield PhD
> http://mmt.me.uk/
> http://mmt.me.uk/foaf.rdf#mischa

_____________________________
Mischa Tuffield PhD
http://mmt.me.uk/
http://mmt.me.uk/foaf.rdf#mischa