Re: ask and you shall be redirected

On 11/25/11 12:21 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 25 Nov 2011, at 17:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>>
>> The item above is extremely important for implementers of WebID. We 
>> cannot mandate that they build SPARQL engines or even support SPARQL.
>>
>> For someone in possession of extremely sophisticated SPARQL 
>> technology, I still wouldn't encourage any Linked Data oriented spec 
>> that pushed RDF and SPARQL specificity. Doing so ultimately 
>> introduces adoption inertia and conceptual confusion via conflation 
>> of core concepts and implementation details.
>
> The spec does not mandate SPARQL. I don't see it.

Note, I said "encouraged" . I am referring to coercion here. The spec 
currently does that re. both RDF and SPARQL.

As I've stated repeatedly, we have to separate the concept of verifiable 
identifiers from the mechanics of implementation.

>
> "There are number of different ways to check that the public key given 
> in the X.509 certificate against the one provided by the WebID Profile 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#dfn-webid_profile>, but 
> the simplest way to explain it is to say that they all have to be 
> equivalent to the following SPARQL queries."
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#verifying-the-webid-is-identified-by-that-public-key

And you make my very point above. "SPARQL" doesn't need to be in your 
answer. That's the problem. At best, its very secondary with clear 
qualification along the lines of something like this: "if you are 
implementing WebID using a SPARQL service, then this would boil down to 
a SPARQL ASK query where pattern takes the form....." .  Personally, I 
just would have SPARQL or RDF in the spec. They would surface is related 
documents about implementation examples since one can clearly group 
implementations by approaches etc..

WebID is AWWW technology. Thus, it doesn't have to pull in SPARQL and 
RDF at the spec level.
>
> I would like a language where I can point to the pattern in terms of 
> SPARQL, as that is easy to understand .
>
> Please come up with better language.

SPARQL is easy to understand by whom? Are you and I the norm? I don't 
think so :-)

>
> Henry
>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  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