Hi Henry,<div><br></div><div>Are you a member of OIDF? If not I would like to invite you to join OIDF.</div><div><br></div><div>Also before I say anything more i need to make a few disclaimers.</div><div><br></div><div>1) I cannot not speak for OIDF the foundation or for all the other members here. I can only speak as a community member and thats all I am.</div>
<div>2) I cannot speak the "normative" language. I prefer plain english. And my plain english may be slightly different, being from another part of the world.</div><div><br></div><div>I think you can contribute to our efforts to develop OpenID v.next. Also there are some challenges to over come before we can do something useful.</div>
<div>1) Simplify RDFa, foaf to a level that regular developers can very easily understand the whole thing. This is not to suggest that I think these are complicated, on the other hand we have to be mindful of the fact that developers, like all of us, will take the "least path of resistance".</div>
<div>2) I like the idea with RDFa/foaf, OpenID's can resolve to something meaning full. You have already shown two possibilities earlier (one with html resolution and the other without).</div><div>3) We need to consider delegation. A thorny issue but can be solved.</div>
<div>4) Digital Signature (this i think is already available with foaf+ssl). Might need some modification, upgrading.</div><div>5) Email like identifiers as OpenID's. These can only be resolved via webfinger/host-met, ie if they are written in a manner independent of XRD. Other wise we will have to write equivalent versions of webfinger/host-meta. Also OpenID's that do not resolve to anything meaningful in (2) above will try the host-meta option.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I have spent the better part of the last 24 hrs reading up on RDF/RDFa/foaf and i am quite convinced the above can be done.</div><div><br></div><div>And true to the spirit of being "Open" we will do everything out in the Open. There will be "NO" private emails sent to each other.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div>Santosh</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Story Henry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net">henry.story@bblfish.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On 20 Nov 2009, at 03:16, Peter Williams wrote:<br>
<br>
> The only thing I see as viable alternative to rdfa would be some hatom microformat.<br>
<br>
</div>It does not really matter what format you use. foaf+ssl is defined at the semantic level.<br>
As long as you can map a format to the required semantics, the system will work.<br>
<br>
Furthermore this can be done automatically. Any XML vocabulary can be mapped to rdf using GRDDL for example. <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/</a><br>
<br>
microformats as a syntax is ok, a good stepping stone to help people gain understanding of the semantic web. But it has quite a few problems in the extensibility realm: you always need to go through the microformat process to add new features, and they have deliberately and quite rightly limited their work to developing what they consider the most important ontologies.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, RDFa is not that difficult to learn now, and there are tools everywhere enabling it. It is gaining quite a lot of support.<br>
<br>
But the main point is, that it does not matter. If someone comes up with an even neater way of integrating rdf into html - an even better syntax - then nothing will need to change at the spec level of foaf+ssl. The proof lies in the pudding: when we developed foaf+ssl I did not know about RDFa. And it is only recently that I added support for RDFa to my testing tools. But nothing changed in the definition of foaf+ssl.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Henry</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a><br><br><br>
</div>