W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:29:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4C3B26BC.6010200@openlinksw.com>
To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me@farewellutopia.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
> Hi
>
> Some opinions a first look:
>
> - I'm against requiring RDFA as this means I cannot expose my triple
> store as a collection of Web-Ids without adding some templates.

RDFa shouldn't be mandatory or given higher status to other data 
representation formats associated with RDF (the Data Model).

I believe Manu is fixing / fixed this.
>  If we
> really think a format mus be guaranteed the I think it should be
> RDF/XML.
>   
No!

Data Representations shouldn't become a battle ground. Please remember 
the very essence of Web Architecture: Data Representation formats are 
Negotiable.

Give examples using appropriate formats when seeking optimal 
communication vehicle for a give audience etc.. RDFa for HTML audience 
and one of the other RDF model associated formats when dealing with LOD 
and Semantic Web Core types.

> - I disagree with 2.2.4, especially if the PPD is delivered oven an
> insecure connection the server might have better ways to verify that
> the claimed identity matches the keypair used by the request of the
> client
> - Webid/OpenId: it should be noted that the WebId identifies the
> agent, while the OpenId identifies (an htmlt representation of the)
> PPD (as Toby noted the two URIs are typically related)
>   
OpenID aligns to the Profile Doc i.e. they can have the same URL as I've 
demonstrated repeatedly.


Kingsley
> Cheers,
> reto
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:28:51 -0400
>> Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Here's the link to the e-mail announcement on payswarm-dev:
>>>
>>> http://payswarm.com/pipermail/payswarm-dev/2010-July/000035.html
>>>       
>> This seems like a good start. However, the SPARQL query shown uses the
>> deprecated form for marking up keys:
>>
>> PREFIX cert: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
>> PREFIX rsa: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#>
>> SELECT ?modulus ?exp
>> WHERE {
>>   ?key cert:identity <http://example.org/webid#public>;
>>      a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
>>      rsa:modulus [ cert:hex ?modulus; ];
>>      rsa:public_exponent [ cert:decimal ?exp ] .
>> }
>>
>> The newer form uses datatypes instead of the cert:hex and cert:decimal
>> properties:
>>
>> PREFIX cert: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
>> PREFIX rsa: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#>
>> SELECT ?modulus ?exp
>> WHERE {
>>   ?key cert:identity <http://example.org/webid#public>;
>>      a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
>>      rsa:modulus ?modulus;
>>      rsa:public_exponent ?exp .
>> }
>>
>> It's possible to support both in the same SPARQL query:
>>
>> PREFIX cert: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
>> PREFIX rsa: <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/rsa#>
>> SELECT ?modulus ?exp ?modulus2 ?exp2
>> WHERE {
>>   ?key cert:identity <http://example.org/webid#public>;
>>      a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
>>      rsa:modulus ?modulus;
>>      rsa:public_exponent ?exp .
>>   OPTIONAL { ?modulus cert:hex ?modulus2 . }
>>   OPTIONAL { ?exp cert:decimal ?exp2 . }
>> }
>>
>> Using ?modulus2 and ?exp2 if they are bound; ?modulus and ?exp
>> otherwise.
>>
>> A few other thoughts...
>>
>> The definition of "WebID URL" is:
>>
>>        | A URL specified in the Subject Alternative Name field
>>        | of the Identification Certificate that identifies a
>>        | WebID Profile document.
>>
>> Actually, the WebID URL identifies an Agent, typically a Person. The
>> URL will normally contain a fragment identifier though, and by removing
>> the fragment, you get the URL for a WebID Profile document; or if it
>> does not contain a fragment identifier, it should perform a 303
>> redirect to the WebID Profile document.
>>
>> There should probably be a definition for "WebID Holder" or something
>> similar. And we should note that the WebID Profile may provide a
>> description of the WebID Holder, typically using FOAF.
>>
>> I'd also like for RDF/XML to be another format that implementations are
>> *required* to support. RDF/XML and XHTML+RDFa are the two RDF
>> serialisations at W3C Rec status, so it seems sensible to grant them
>> both equal status in the WebID spec. (Of course, there's growing
>> interest within the W3C in standardising both Turtle and a JSON
>> serialisation of RDF. I don't know how many serialisations it makes
>> sense to require.)
>>
>> I think section 2.3.5 should be dropped. Once the identity of the agent
>> has been established, it's up to the server what to do with that
>> information. We should draw a line between authentication and
>> authorisation. Apache does this and it works very well: you can swap
>> authn and authz modules in and out independently of each other.
>>
>> Lastly, it would be nice to keep the foaf-protocols mailing list copied
>> into this thread, as it's the main place where FOAF+SSL is discussed.
>>
>> --
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 14:29:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT