- From: Mischa Tuffield <mischa@mmt.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:09:24 +0000
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: Baptiste Lafontaine <baptiste33@gmail.com>, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>, WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <CC9A975F-7AE0-40F0-A9CA-E37A46FB41C4@mmt.me.uk>
Hi Henry, inline ... On 14 Nov 2011, at 12:35, Henry Story wrote: > Thanks Mischa, > > If that works, then I wonder if the problem with our RDFa example on http://webid.info/spec#rdfa-html-notation is that we place the namespaces in the <html> root element. Perhaps an example that places the namespaces in the div as you do below would make it easier to think of. Is that why Baptiste Lafontaine believed that one could not add RDFa to Wordpress? Yeah, perhaps that is the issue, as far as I am aware there is no need to put the namespace declarations in the <html> element, am sure my example works too. Regarding your example, I am not sure it is ideal for when I try and convert it to triples I get the following: <> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> "Joe" . _:bnode1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#RSAPublicKey> . _:bnode1 <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#modulus> "\n 00:cb:24:ed:85:d6:4d:79:4b:69:c7:01:c1:86:ac:\n c0:59:50:1e:85:60:00:f6:61:c9:32:04:d8:38:0e:\n 07:19:1c:5c:8b:36:8d:2a:c3:2a:42:8a:cb:97:03:\n 98:66:43:68:dc:2a:86:73:20:22:0f:75:5e:99:ca:\n 2e:ec:da:e6:2e:8d:15:fb:58:e1:b7:6a:e5:9c:b7:\n ac:e8:83:83:94:d5:9e:72:50:b4:49:17:6e:51:a4:\n 94:95:1a:1c:36:6c:62:17:d8:76:8d:68:2d:de:78:\n dd:4d:55:e6:13:f8:83:9c:f2:75:d4:c8:40:37:43:\n e7:86:26:01:f3:c4:9a:63:66:e1:2b:b8:f4:98:26:\n 2c:3c:77:de:19:bc:e4:0b:32:f8:9a:e6:2c:37:80:\n f5:b6:27:5b:e3:37:e2:b3:15:3a:e2:ba:72:a9:97:\n 5a:e7:1a:b7:24:64:94:97:06:6b:66:0f:cf:77:4b:\n 75:43:d9:80:95:2d:2e:85:86:20:0e:da:41:58:b0:\n 14:e7:54:65:d9:1e:cf:93:ef:c7:ac:17:0c:11:fc:\n 72:46:fc:6d:ed:79:c3:77:80:00:0a:c4:e0:79:f6:\n 71:fd:4f:20:7a:d7:70:80:9e:0e:2d:7b:0e:f5:49:\n 3b:ef:e7:35:44:d8:e1:be:3d:dd:b5:24:55:c6:13:\n 91:a1\n "^^<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#hex> . _:bnode1 <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#public_exponent> "65537"^^<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#int> . <> <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#key> _:bnode1 . Perhaps it is worth cleaning up, so that if someone cuts and pastes the example html, they get something which parses correctly. Great work on the webid stuff people! Mischa *back to lurking :) > > Also I notice that there is no hyperlink in that section to the RDFa spec. > As a reminder, to add improvements to the webid spec people can clone the repository at > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID > > make changes and ask us to review them for inclusion, so that we can merge those changes in. > > Henry > > > On 14 Nov 2011, at 11:32, Mischa Tuffield wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> To be more specific (was on the train when I sent the last email) you could take an rdfa fragment like below (wrapped a hidden span). Taken from my foaf file: >> >> <span style="display:hidden;"> >> <div xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" >> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >> xmlns:cert="http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#" >> xmlns:rsa="http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#" >> xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" >> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >> class="rdf2rdfa"> >> <div class="description" typeof="rsa:RSAPublicKey"> >> <div rel="cert:identity"> >> <div class="description" about="#mischa" typeof="foaf:Person"> >> <div property="foaf:name" content="Mischa Tuffield"/> >> </div> >> </div> >> <div rel="rsa:modulus"> >> <div class="description" typeof="rdfs:Resource"> >> <div property="cert:hex" content="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"/> >> </div> >> </div> >> <div rel="rsa:public_exponent"> >> <div class="description" typeof="rdfs:Resource"> >> <div property="cert:decimal" content="65537"/> >> </div> >> </div> >> </div> >> </span> >> >> Mischa >> >>> >>>> >>>> How do I alternatively stuff an rdf/XML stream into HTML as a data island (eg using an object tag) >>>> >>>> Concerning my opera unite endpoint, the whole point is that a uncontracted, public client cannot use my time sensitive graph - unless I'm online and I choose to release it (under copyright rules that prohibit compilation etc). But that is advanced, and experimntal - presaging the day when webid can be used for business and commerce). >>>> >>>> As it stands, I first just need to use Wordpress to host a little graph (a name and an int...) Ideally those who follow my site (about 1 person) will get an email with the graph embedded when i update the post/page, and this (pretty common) data flow can drive their id and graph caching when the email reader fires up the xHTML handler of the Mac/pc/unix. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> On Nov 13, 2011, at 2:17 PM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 13 Nov 2011, at 22:48, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> at yorkporc.wordpress.com ive hosted on the blog's front page the site's contact page (from 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. >>>>> >>>>> We have RDF/XML, Turtle, RDFa markup in html. Where is RDF/XML inextricably linked? We speak about the model, and we show the serialisations that are widely accepted. >>>>> >>>>> There has to be a way of telling in follow your nose like manner how to get the graph, which does not rely on things like: if the service is called Facebook, then do this, but if it is Twitter then do that, and if is some other site then do that. >>>>> >>>>> Or how do you think we should currently work with Peter William's profile? Should we perhaps add something to the spec that says if the URL is >>>>> >>>>> $ curl -i http://home.homepw2.operaunite.com/webserver/content/ >>>>> HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable >>>>> Content-type: text/html >>>>> Connection: close >>>>> Server: UniteProxy/0.2.5 >>>>> >>>>> <html><frameset cols="100%"><frame src="http://unite.opera.com/general/noservice/homepw2/home/" /></frameset></html> >>>>> >>>>> then we should go to http://yorkporc.wordpress.com/ and read the public key there by searching for the "RSA Public Key" string >>>>> and then finding the key by guessing that that's probably a modulus because it looks like one? >>>>> >>>>> And even if we were to find the public key there, we would find that the webid does not point to the right place but to a different document that is unavailable. But perhaps that's acceptable because the spec should say that if its Peter William's site we should have an exception. >>>>> >>>>> Clearly you are not going to defend such a position. But currently I don't see how Peter Williams can claim that he even has a WebID, not in any meaningful way related to this group's work. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> So what do you want the spec to say? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > _________________________________ Mischa Tuffield Email: mischa@mmt.me.uk Homepage: http://mmt.me.uk/ WebID: http://mmt.me.uk/foaf.rdf#mischa
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 13:09:57 UTC