- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:18:46 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>, "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 29 Nov 2011, at 21:57, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 29 November 2011 21:24, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com> wrote: > >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/ >> >> for the first time, the diagram in 2.3 tells the (fuller) story. Now one can see the way in which the URIs work together, being both profile and resources udner the control of the user described by the profile, as does the foaf:knows link data graph. This give me a private forest concept, and it gives me a notion that a /protected/ (virtual) endpoint can induce someone to be challenged on opening an authentication guard at a protected resource, to show they are known. >> >> The mechanisms are not in the scope, but the issues are. That diagram tells the wider story, in which the validation protocol fits. And, it tells is "naturally" and effortlessly, with URIs. > > Yes, +1 ... the diagram is looking pretty good. > > Tiny bugfix: can we have 'foaf:weblog' instead of 'foaf:blog' for the > property name, for accuracy? Ah yes. Fixed that in the mercurial version. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/8bb6fd9279e4 Amazing how many little details one has to attend to! Btw, if someone would like to add the weblog relation to the rdfa in a nice way please do so. Another thing that would be nice would be to gray out the markup in the serialisations for those relations that are not core to the spec, so that the cert: relations stand out a bit more and match the gif. Henry > > cheers, > > Dan > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 21:19:19 UTC