W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Pubs data

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:08:01 +0100
Message-ID: <49B13C51.1000301@danbri.org>
To: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org, Martin Poulter <M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk>
On 6/3/09 15:25, Tom Heath wrote:

> The most comparable experience from Revyu involved a review of a
> garage; it's documented here in a way that prevents this blogger being
> sued but retains the text online (and tells the account of the threats
> received); note how the text is constructed:
> http://doodznchyx.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/mot-mechanic-in-milton-keynes-chilling-free-speech/

Interesting case. I wonder whether OpenID might (eventually...) improve 
the landscape here by offering a relatively lightweight "right of reply" 
mechanism.

1. If the review entry includes the URI for the homepage of the garage 
(pub, restaurant, etc...).

2. ... and that homepage contains OpenID delegation markup.

For example, in danbri.org I have this pointing to my Yahoo identity. A 
homepage for an organization could do this directly or indirectly.

The markup is something like this:
     <link rel="openid2.provider" 
href="https://open.login.yahooapis.com/openid/op/auth" />
     <link rel="openid2.local_id" href="https://me.yahoo.com/danbri3" />

3. ... the review could say "Does this review talk about you, your 
business or product? If you can prove you control that page, you can log 
in now and give your side of the story..."
(and contain help / wizard code to help folk add the openid markup if 
needed).

4. Downstream parties that have syndicated the review, can also take a 
stream of data that includes OpenID-verified responses from the reviewed 
party. This might range from "yeah, we had a really slack staff member 
who is no longer with us", through "oops, sorry! we'll try to do better" 
to "the reviewer has a personal grudge, is harassing us, ... and we're 
pursuing this in court".

These counter-points, to the extent *they* mention other parties and 
entities, should also be fair game for right-to-reply also. And again I 
think OpenID offers an appropriate piece of technology for establishing 
the provenance of those claims.

Yes OpenID can be a bit hard to use, explain and sometimes doesn't even 
work, but it's the best we have so far. And there are a lot of 
OpenID-enabled accounts out there...

thoughts?

Dan


--
http://danbri.org/
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 15:08:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:19 UTC