- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:48:07 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4EC03B17.60200@openlinksw.com>
On 11/13/11 3:53 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 13 Nov 2011, at 21:31, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> On 11/13/11 4:48 AM, Henry Story wrote: >>> On 13 Nov 2011, at 01:52, Peter Williams wrote: >>> >>>> atyorkporc.wordpress.com <http://yorkporc.wordpress.com/>ive hosted >>>> on the blog's front page the site's contact page (fromwordpress.com >>>> <http://wordpress.com/>). It has in HTML the kind of information >>>> normally shown in a foaf card. it has my long term webid, hosted on >>>> an opera unite endpoint. Its not a foaf card like others and >>>> neither is the endpoint (being only available when I am online). >>> >>> That's ok. As the spec points out ( >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/ ) all that is required >>> for WebID is the publication of the public key at that endpoint with >>> some RDF markup. (btw, we should perhaps add a link to the W3C how >>> to on publishing multiple formats in a content negated format) >> >> Is it about publication of a public key with RDF markup? Is that the >> narrative? If it is, then be up front about it as I am tired of >> cycling this RDF wagon re. the problem it introduces, unnecessarily. >> >> If this is an RDF only solution, say so, and stick to it. Then live >> with the consequences. > > Is there an issue you have with the spec? If so please tell us. I have an issue with narratives the end up with RDF as being inextricable re. WebID and its verification protocol. That's what I have an issue with. If the spec toes that line, then I have a problem with the spec. If the spec is RDF specific then qualify the whole thing as RDF based WebID, nice and simple. > > Most implementations I know of now are working with RDF > serialisations, so those are the ones we should be sticking by > initially, as we did from the very start. Again, what on earth does that mean? That there will be a narrative utterly laced with that bias? Again, there's nothing wrong with saying: this is RDF based WebID etc.. That's better that pretending it isn't be it via spec or narrative. > Those serialisations are well documented and clearly specified. So? Kingsley > >> >>> >>> I see that your WebID Profile Page - as it is called in the spec >>> section 2.3 - is in html. So I guess it's meant to be parsed as RDFa. >>> The RDFa http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/ validation service seems >>> to only return a few URLs for your page. >>> >>> I don't see that you have specified any of the cert or rsa >>> namespaces so if you want to turn that into a WebID you do need to >>> follow the explanation here >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#rdfa-html-notation >>> >>> If you find problems or unclarities in any aspect of the spec, >>> please explain which part of the text is unclear, and what wording >>> you suggest would help improve it. >> >> You are talking syntax again. Can WebID not be discussed conceptually >> without syntax specificity? Is this impossible? > > I am talking spec. > > In the future when semantics is more clearly and widely understood > then one will no longer need to mentions syntax. But at present that > is not the case. The document is an evolving one. > > Henry > >> >> Kingsley >>> >>> Henry >>> >>>> >>>> I happen to enforce more privacy than perhaps do most consumers >>>> (being a security type engineer who is experimenting with semantic >>>> web ideas, as they evolve). I know some folks want foaf cards as >>>> public data, cacheable by search engines and others maintaining >>>> huge triple stores. I dont. I want to assert my privacy >>>> expectations (becuase in the US, one has no rights until they are >>>> asserted - this being the way that social laws on privacy happen to >>>> be structured.) And I do this in ways that may not meet the >>>> idealized, academically-normalized semantic web concept, which >>>> assumes you have public documents that anyone can browse, cache, >>>> cite from, etc. >>>> >>>> Now >>>> >>>> does anyone know HOW to make a wordpress contact page embed either >>>> >>>> (1) an XML stream, coding up the xml-serializion of a foaf card >>>> (e.g. the output of foaf.me), or >>>> (2) the RDFa of a foaf card. >>>> >>>> I cannot make either work. >>>> >>>> I seem to remember that one was supposed to be able to add "XML >>>> data island" as a subelement in HTML (since XHTML is just an XML >>>> vocab). One is supposed to be able to embed RDFa tags in HTML >>>> elements too. Unfortunately, the wordpress site strips out what I >>>> add (refusing to host them). Ill guess that these are default >>>> safety options, that can be removed by those who know how. >>>> >>>> My wordpress blogsite is hosted by wordpress cloud service, not by >>>> me on a server (im not sufficient competent to run a production >>>> server). So, there may be less ability to change the configuration >>>> to offer RDFa and XML embedding, than a site one hosts on a private >>>> server. >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> President& 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 >> >> >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 21:48:31 UTC