RE: slow down and organize

That's fine. And I tend to agree about standard's structure (protocol first,
interfaces second)

 

Can I **as an implementor** please have access to that service? (think
webby! It's what make things take off.). It only has to work in the most
common cases, 80% of the time.

 

Im in dotNet land, which has a dirth of rdf/rdfs libraries. I'd MUCH rather
consume a remote service doing all the rdf/rdfs/sparql related validation
agent steps, than link to the dotNet libraries I used last year for local
rdf/rdfs/sparql validation agent steps. 

 

From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Henry Story
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:21 AM
To: WebID Incubator Group WG
Subject: Re: slow down and organize

 

 

On 24 Feb 2011, at 20:31, Peter Williams wrote:





no I dont want to do that. The topic has nothing to do with ASN.1 notation.
It has nothing to do with pointing to a "PEM" file, wrapping a DER-coded
value.
 
in my mind, its a toss up which is better
 
1. a webservice over http that remotes using a sparql engine/API to test a
foaf card for a pubkey
2. a sparql _protocol_ run over http... using a sparql engine/API to test a
foaf card for a pubkey

 

Once you have a functional WebID, then anyone can come up with this kind of
service. We already have one at http://foafssl.org/ which is what
http://foaf.me/ uses.

 

I don't think we need to bother with the creation of a protocol for such a
service: it builds on WebID. It's at a different layer.





 
I think I have the implementation skills to consume 1
 
I think I have the implementation skills to invoke 2 and then consume an XML
resultset of a few name/value pairs.
 
Is there an issue that would best frame "remoting" FROM the TLS responder
some (but not all) of the verification agents steps described in section
3.1?
 
 
 

  _____  


Subject: Re: slow down and organize
From: henry.story@bblfish.net
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:58:55 +0100
CC: reto.bachmann@trialox.org; nathan@webr3.org; public-xg-webid@w3.org
To: home_pw@msn.com




On 24 Feb 2011, at 17:48, peter williams wrote:

 

What linked data PROPOSES for scheme #17 is great. But, can we just do it
rather than talk about it? Start with the simplest version of linked data,
and don't make me learn anything about federated social webs. Just let me
read a foaf card on the web, test it for a key - just like I already do with
an ldap query. Do that as simply as possible, ideally in a manner that a
billion PCs can do today, with no change. Don't make me learn turtle, don't
make me learn n3, don't make me learn inferences due to RDFa. Just let me
test a key exists in a remote file, using a trivial webservice.

 

what you want is to develop issue-6 "using ASN.1 formats for WebID
description"

 

    http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/6

 

Why don't you write out a simple spec on the wiki for that, put up the pros
and cons you can think of

That is the simplest I can think of: A WebID that points into to a PEM file.
We can see what people think.

 

Shall I open an action item for you?

 

Henry

 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

 

 

 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/