RE: WebID-ISSUE-7 (bblfish): Move esw wiki contents? [WebID wiki]

Not sure I like:
 
"A Web ID looks similar to a home page URL, but it specifically identifies Entity You of Type: Person. Typically, the definition of Type: Person,comes from a vocabulary or ontology or data dictionary. One such vocabulary is FOAF, which is the basis of this effort." on the webid page.
 
What I really liked about the use of RDFa in the FOAF+SSL pre-incubator world was that the good ol' home page could easily be foaf card, and thus the home page URI is a webid stem. To the average punter (who will rarely understand the significance of #tag on the end), the home page URI is a webid.
 
The is no way in a million years I'll get even 2 realtors to ever use the foaf-generator sites and tools listed on the wiki. Getting them to add a paragraph of special html markup interspersed with normal paragraph form...is quite  feasible. Its a template, and we can give it to them.
 
This RDFa argument for foaf cards mattered to me. It was like the "add sound file to mosaic browser" moment, succesfully dumbing down stuff for the mass of folk without prevent the technical standards doing their thing, just as the experts here define.

 
> From: henry.story@bblfish.net
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:01:16 +0100
> CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> To: tai@g5n.co.uk
> Subject: Re: WebID-ISSUE-7 (bblfish): Move esw wiki contents? [WebID wiki]
> 
> On 29 Jan 2011, at 10:22, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:38:27 +0000
> > WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> There is a lot of info on the esw wiki on WebID both at 
> >> 
> >> http://esw.w3.org/foaf+ssl
> >> http://esw.w3.org/WebID
> >> 
> >> There is no reason to move the content.
> > 
> > W3C groups automatically get MediaWiki instances of their own. Ours is
> > here:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Main_Page
> > 
> > However, when I asked on the RDFa WG about the persistence of the wiki
> > once the group has closed, it seems the answer is that there are no
> > guarantees about it remaining writeable by the former group's members.
> > So I'd be in favour of keeping the WebID wiki stuff on esw.
> 
> 
> I agree. Note that the good thing is that every member of this group
> has access to the esw wiki. So we can maintain wiki like things there. So if
> a FAQ comes up here or in conversations people have with others trying to
> explain the protocol, or if people see spelling mistakes, or badly written
> text please don't hesitate to update the wiki: You can.
> 
> We probably need to rename some things such as foaf+ssl => webid. But we 
> can do that in one go when work out the best naming convention.
> 
> What we should do is use the content there to put together small well
> written proposals here for issues the group think this is important 
> enough to add to the final report. 
> 
> The wiki here can also be used to flesh out proposals for the spec or for 
> accompanying documentation. If people have a few different proposals we 
> can speak of them by pointing to a page that describes the proposal and 
> it's pros and cons. This was one way we proceeded in the Atom working group. 
> So we should designate a space for people to put up such reports with a 
> template for doing that perhaps.
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> > -- 
> > Toby A Inkster
> > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> > 
> > 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
>