Re: Important Question re. WebID Verifiers & Linked Data

On 12/22/11 11:49 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> >  You are forcing me to be*deliberately*  patronizing. I don't understand why you are forcing inertia where it doesn't need to exist. Why introduce unnecessary politics into an effort that should be transcendent, by simply inheriting from the AWWW.
> There is no inertia I see. We are progessing very well. WE have interoperable implementations.

How many? Until yesterday what was the state of interoperability? Basic 
tests with Linked Data URIs failed by most, including yours.
> I'll try to stay a bit out of this discussion since the community here seems to be coming back into action. Note that
> the thread dies pretty much this summer when I argued with you that we should allow all formats in the hope this would
> bring in micro data people to join us.

Who are the Microdata people?
Who are the RDFa people?

> They never came and our group stalled. So that is an indication to me that
> simplicity in the spec is important.

Make up your mind. Do you want "simply simple" or "deceptively simple" . 
At least we agree on the fact that AWWW is "deceptively simple".

> There is a lot to learn already for all involved: Linked data, rdf semantics, TLS, HTTP

Again, this is about a spec. It isn't about teaching engineering with a 
bias towards some perceived engineering skill set. You continue to 
mangle the issues at hand here.

Are you working on a spec?
Are you trying to teach engineering?



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 17:20:59 UTC