Re: Important Question re. WebID Verifiers & Linked Data

On 12/22/11 9:57 AM, Patrick Logan wrote:
> OK, that seems manageable, assuming it all specs out.
>
> So looking at the 12 December 2012 draft (
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#in-portable-contacts-format-using-grddl
> ), it looks like (2) RDFa and (4) RDF/XML are in the draft, but (1)
> HTML+Microdata and (3) Turtle are not.
>
> In particular the two most relevant sections look to be:
>
> ========
> 3.2.4.1 Processing the WebID Profile
>
> The Verification Agent must be able to process documents in RDF/XML
> [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and RDFa in XHTML [XHTML-RDFA]. The result of
> this processing should be a graph of RDF relations that is queryable,
> as explained in the next section.
> ========
>
> How should that read instead?

========
3.2.4.1 Processing the WebID Profile

The Verification Agent SHOULD be able to process at least one of the following structured documents types: RDF/XML
[RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR], RDFa in XHTML [XHTML-RDFA] or HTML, Turtle, and Microdata in HTML. The result of
this processing should be a graph of RDF relations that is queryable,
as explained in the next section.
========


> And then the profile description section itself (
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#the-webid-profile ) lists
> some "should", "must", and "not required"
>
> ========
> foaf:mbox
>
> foaf:name
>
> foaf:depiction
>
> cert:RSAPublicKey
>
> cert:key
> ========
>
> Clearly (to me) Turtle can handle these.

Yes, ditto Microdata.

> So maybe nothing more has to
> be said about that but to list Turtle as an option.
>
> I know almost nothing about HTML+Microdata. My basic understanding is
> that the "itemtype" attribute would be required to indicate some
> values are foaf:mbox's, cert:key's, etc. Are there any representation
> issues or pieces missing in the Microdata draft necessary to have
> Microdata be unambiguously supported in the WebID spec?
>
> Are you (Kingsley) driving the inclusion of Microdata in the WebID spec?

I am suggesting it be added. There's no reason to not give Microdata and 
RDFa equal standing.  Microdata is already more widely used than RDFa, 
courtesy of Google's influence. Thus, why not embrace it?

Links:

1. https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/posts -- note about 
Microdata and WebID .

Kingsley
>
> Thanks
> -Patrick
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> On 12/22/11 8:08 AM, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> The WebID spec can require or suggest a number of common formats for
>>>>> eav/spo triple transmission as the basis for effective bootstrap.
>>> Agreed. What should that list be at this point in time?
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>>
>> 1. HTML + Microdata
>> 2. XHTML + RDFa
>> 3. Turtle
>> 4. RDF/XML .
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder&    CEO
>>
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen