- From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:24:36 -0800
- To: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
- CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Is this a proposal to use the method distinguishing abstract from concrete, and service from protocol? If so, I'm all in favor. If webid is a service, ldap http and oid are 3 equally valid protocols - as are schemes only recognized by platform. If https is a service port, then browser, socket and proxy are 3 protocol integrations. If a profile is an abstract type, signed xrd, foaf files, foafagent sources are each concrete types. Ideally, in the assurance space for webid folks will make concrete claims using Internet security architecture. This may take the logic of provenance and then state what is true and what measures secure that truth. On Feb 18, 2011, at 1:16 PM, WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > WebID-ISSUE-40 (Glossary): A glossary of the preferred terms used for talking about the WebId architecture [WebID Spec] > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/40 > > Raised by: Reto Bachmann-Gmür > On product: WebID Spec > > We should specify a set of abstract terms we use when writing and discussing about the WebId architecture and spec. This should help separating the discussion on architecture and ontology separated from implementation characteristics. > > > >
Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 23:25:06 UTC