W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

RE: [foaf-protocols] [foaf-dev] WebID support for Node.js

From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <SNT143-W1212911F89E3AD0E1BB30592840@phx.gbl>
To: <baptiste33@gmail.com>, <foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org>, "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

I read the report, particularly interested in the node.js technology (since its promoted in Windows Azure); and because I noted Nathan had supported it by exposing the SAN URIs of the certificate to the API, as properties.


The most worrisome feature - allowing for translation issues in formal academic language - were the first few statements. These characterized the mission of webid.


To be fair, the missiong statement was accurate for the founding positions of webid; and probably a few members still. They may even be leading members. Their beliefs are that the likes of Facebook does not serve the public, and only "pure web" can address the public need. As the reports hints, this means only when everyone personall acts as IT administrator and runs an apache server (fiddling with http.conf and rewrite rules) will the trust problem we solved ; and solved the "webby way".


Now, said this bluntly  == by me, for effect --  the claim is a little preposterous. it doesnt even rationalize why such is needed, for trust specifically. It does not offer any evidence of its viability or need. Is just a hunch that is often found in software engineering culture.


Because the report said what the movement originally asserted (but asserts only under its breath, increasingly), it struggled for credibility at the outset. It felt a little like cryptopolitics (and its endless angst). It didnt feel like W3C. I didnt *like* the first few paragraphs, despite the accuracy.


If you change the report (in its native French), advocate; and advocate via tone an appeal to where one would like webid to be, in 5 years and then 10 years time. Lay out the steps that evolve the web to represent the philosophical principles, without stating the only embodiment. Argue from history how multiple embodiments of everything, including even the core data structures, supports social *evolution* when adopting standards, at global scale.


Finally, I found the report easy to read, and it took me through the mission, the technologies and then the justification for the node.js experiment. I felt I was reading science, even through the translation. The authors had exposed their reasoning for the experiment, and educated the reader about both established and expected knowledge at the same time.







Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 16:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:55 UTC