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

Re: Pubs data

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:19:42 +0100
Message-ID: <9178f78c0903060719p2e8fbeft2bd048ccdf9c2aba@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>, 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 Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> 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" />

I think it's quite difficult so far to whitelist openIDs?  Though I
think someone offering a relatively neutral service for this would be
a good thing, I guess the question is: if you're starting your own
openID homepage, how would you get whitelisted?

Also from your homepage:

<link rel="meta" type="application/rdf+xml" title="FOAF"
href="http://danbri.org/foaf.rdf" />

>From this a service like qdos, could perhaps give you their
interpretation of your reputation score, and therefore, decrease the
likelhood that you would leave an inappropriate comment.  This can be
measured by applying an alogirthm on the linked foaf identities that
they have in their index, much in the same way that google offers a
page rank.

>
> 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 22:34:22 UTC

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