{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/joshuef/webIdManager/issues/4","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/joshuef/webIdManager","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/joshuef/webIdManager/issues/4/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/joshuef/webIdManager/issues/4/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/joshuef/webIdManager/issues/4/events","html_url":"https://github.com/joshuef/webIdManager/issues/4","id":342285128,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzNDIyODUxMjg=","number":4,"title":"WebID format is missing a fragment identifier","user":{"login":"theWebalyst","id":2183895,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjIxODM4OTU=","avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/2183895?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst","html_url":"https://github.com/theWebalyst","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/theWebalyst/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2018-07-18T11:18:07Z","updated_at":"2018-07-25T12:32:17Z","closed_at":"2018-07-25T12:32:17Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"The WebID format for Solid requires a fragment identifier: '#', so `safe://nikita` is not a valid WebID. This is because *a WebID must be a URI but not a document.* I think there are two accepted ways to do this, but Solid only uses a fragment identifier AFAIK.\r\n\r\nIt should be `safe://nikita#me` or more ususally `safe://nikita/card#me` or similar.\r\n\r\nI'm also not sure about using just the public name like this rather than `safe://nikita/card#me`\r\n\r\nI like it, but we should check with the Solid team the implications of `safe://nikita#me` rather than `safe://nikita/card#me`. The former might well be fine, I'm not sure, although it might hit problems with apps making assumptions. Also, it looks less like a valid WebID which might confuse people. \r\n\r\nI like the shorter form being lazy and forgetful, but I'm not sure how it stacks up with the rest of Solid (e.g. an LDP store on the same id).\r\n\r\nA follow up question is would we support creation of a WebID that didn't just map to a public name, as that's the first thing anyone coming from the WebID spec or Solid will try with this UI? We should at least handle the case of someone trying `safe://nikita/card#me` with a helpful UX **before** showing this app to them! \r\n\r\nI think they'll find this approach strange because to them a WebID is a graph within a profile document (referenced by the fragment). On Solid this is a file. So their workflow will be to create a WebID profile document that they expect to see under a domain, rather than equal to a domain. While I like having a shorter WebID URI, the shift may be creating a bit of an adoption barrier. For example, `safe://nikita/card#me` is going to be instantly recognised as a WebID, whereas someone receiving your WebID as `safe://nikita#me` might think, \"ah, they mean `safe://nikita/card#me`\" and retype it etc."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"joshuef"}}