Re: Registration of acct: as a URI scheme has been requested

On 6/23/12 3:12 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/23/12 9:42 AM, Nathan wrote:
>>>
>>> So rather than creating an unstable pretty much useless URI for use 
>>> internally within a specific protocol, why not take advantage of 
>>> this provision and define the variable {acct} instead, such that you 
>>> can do:
>>>
>>> https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?acct=joe@gmail.com
>>>
>>> That way you tie in with web architecture, don't need a new 
>>> URI-scheme, and still get to do what's required. 
>>
>> In what context is any URI useless? Please remember URI abstraction 
>> re. context of my question.
>>
>> Again: https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?acct=joe@gmail.com , 
>> is a URL, a data access address. Webfinger folks don't want to 
>> present: <https://gmail.com/.well-known/host-meta?acct=joe@gmail.com> 
>> as a name to its end-users and developers when they use: 
>> <acct:joe@gmail.com> .
>>
>> In a nutshell, you are implying that Linked Data is only achievable 
>> via http: scheme URIs. That simply isn't true. Even worse, you are 
>> making your case using host-meta which is all about delivering a 
>> generic resolver mechanism for URIs. Basically, decoupling the 
>> name/access functionality that's baked into http: URLs.
>>
>> Being convenient and cost-effective doesn't make http: scheme URIs 
>> the sole option for Linked Data. It just doesn't.
>
> As you know I don't need convinced of the benefits of linked data, but 
> I would like convinced that the acct: scheme is required; so far I've 
> not seen any evidence of this, other existing techs can do the job, 
> and RFC6415 appears to cover the cases where identifiers aren't URIs.
>
> I do accept though that saying a URI is useless is was far to strong, 
> what I meant to say, or imply, was that creating a new scheme when not 
> required may not be the best path to take - which I had thought was 
> the point of this thread, and thus discussed then offered an alternative.

The net effect of creating an new URI scheme could be costly in some 
context (e.g. today's World Wide Web dominated by one type of user 
agent, the Web Browser). Not necessarily so re.,  other contexts.

>
> WebFinger is valuable, to the web, and the web of linked data, and I'd 
> be keen to see it get to where it needs to be with as little red tape 
> and limitations possible, if acct: can be swapped out for ?acct= 
> without it impeding functionality, and speed up the process, then 
> that's what I'd personal opt for.

Here's how I've used acct: (since I first encountered Webfinger) for 
both WebID and my Profile data in general:

1. http://bit.ly/KtaGwI -- searching on my acct: scheme URI
2. http://bit.ly/MEqals -- full profile
3. http://bit.ly/KFeYG3 -- looking at inverse functional property 
effects on co-references
4. http://bit.ly/KTWCCx -- ditto but via explicit co-reference via 
owl:sameAs relationships.

>
> Best as always,
>
> Nathan
>
>
>


-- 

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