Re: long term webid of peter, contrary to rumour

On 11/15/11 2:56 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 15 Nov 2011, at 02:21, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> But Peter is saying: I want a commodity solution. One that lets 
>> people declare and rescind claims with the same degree of alacrity 
>> associate with posting a Tweet or making a Blog Post.
>
> We are building a spec to make a commodity solution possible.

The current spec is too RDF specific. And as I said, RDF and commodity 
solution with high viral bootstrap potential is an oxymoron circa. 2011. 
The spec should end up with RDF being an option. Why does the spec stick 
with modulus and exponent (solely) when Fingerprints can also serve 
similar role re. claim mirror in IdP space? As I stated a while back, 
fixing WOT re. X.509 Certificate fingerprints is all that's needed to 
make this critical tweak workable, without disruption.

We all want a commodity solution, but we differ on the pragmatics of the 
path to manifestation. I prefer to be non disruptive at the end-user 
level i.e., integrate with what's already in use rather than mandate a 
syntax oriented "rip and replace" solution.

>
> We have three commodity solutions currently, none of which he wants to 
> use: data.fm, virutoso, fcns.eu <http://fcns.eu>.
btw - its http://id.myopenlink.net/ods (an instance of ODS which is 
built using Virtuoso) that aligns with data.fm and fcns.eu .

Peter has his end-user hat on. Thus, he should be seeking an unobtrusive 
solution that works with his existing setup. In this case Wordpress is 
the existing setup. It allows him to publish (make a blog post) and 
rescind (delete blog post) claims at will. No HTML+RDFa or any other RDF 
syntax exposure required.

> The only solution he wants to use is the one least likely to want to 
> do anything in this space.

You don't see middleware dimension of all of this. The Web is an 
integration platform extraordinaire, its middleware, and its already 
demonstrated why middleware works. Ripping and replacing existing 
infrastructure doesn't work, and if the WebID spec doesn't comprehend 
this reality it will simply remain confined to the esoteric box, devoid 
of mass uptake by those operating in the Web's 2nd dimension (Web 2.0).

We have to build a bridge between Web 2.0 and 3.0. It has to be non 
disruptive in nature, and that comes from good design. The AWWW is great 
design, and it allows us to pull this off. We just need to fix the WOT 
ontology.

> He claims to have a WebID, yet after 2 years he should know what is 
> required to have one. I have seen beginner students put those together 
> faster and with more enthusiasm than Peter.

Think of Peter as playing "devils advocate" with a pragmatic use case 
scenario in hand.

>
> What peter is doing is being a Troll. He is wasting our time once 
> again with a huge thread where he put his name in big in the subject 
> field, as he has ever since he joined this group.

I was inspired by Peter re., looking into the use of AtomPub (Wordpress 
and other platforms), LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook etc.. as IdP spaces 
for WebID.

>
> So I am asking him to be removed from the invited experts list. 
> Perhaps then we can get back to business here and finish the spec.
-1

Peter: could I encourage you to move the discussion re. Wordpress and 
related issues to the Read-Write Web group [1]?

Links:

1. http://www.w3.org/community/rww/ - Read Write Web Community Group .


>
> Henry
>
> 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