Re: Use Cases and Requirements document for WebID

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

>
> On 11 Dec 2012, at 16:15, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, I had flushed some ideas at [1].
>
> These seem relevant
>
> Use-Cases:
>         • referring to one's identity
>         • WebID-based authentication
>         • WebID-based authorization
> Requirements:
>         • one MUST be able to change one's WebID
>         • one MUST distinguish a WebID (a simple URI for a Web Resource)
> from a WebID Profile (the Web Information Resource). This SHOULD not rely
> on dereferencing.
>         • the system MUST take efficiency into account
>         • the system MUST not introduce any incompatility with LDP,
> especially for Write operations
>         • the Web Profile MUST define a default representation format
>         • the system SHOULD considerer legacy WebIDs (or FOAF/SSL)
> whenever possible
>

I completely agree with all points here.

It seems to me that we may need to put WebAccessControl into the WebID
> group, as it
> is very tied to authentication and so to WebID-Authentication over TLS,
> and is one of
> the key use cases for WebID.
>

I agree with mentioning WAC, though not in the identity/profile spec. That
spec should always be very very simple. Maybe we can put WAC in a "Use
cases and requirements" spec (similar to LDP's), as Henry suggested to me.

Also, I believe that pingback and mail are more related to the RWW realm,
so we should move to the RWW list when discussing them.

Andrei


>
>   Henry
>
> > Alexandre.
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/Requirements
> >
> > On 12/11/2012 10:11 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> >> To make some progress, I think we need a use cases and requirements
> document.
> >>
> >> At TPAC the main interest was to be able to work with the newly emerging
> >> Linked Data Platform group [1]. I don't think that LDP says anything
> about
> >> 303s so I don't think this is in fact necessarily relevant to the 303
> vs hash
> >> debate.
> >>
> >> But it does give us a good reason to have HTTP URIs because we can then
> use
> >> that platform to do things like the following:
> >>
> >>
> >> Create an account
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >>   ( requires LDP + WebAccessControl )
> >>
> >>   1. Find an a LD Collection that is publicly available and allows
> creation of containers
> >>   2. create a container that gives default access to the creator (
> perhaps using hash id )
> >>   3. creator can POST a WebID Profile to container with public key
> >>
> >> Restful Mail
> >> ------------
> >>
> >>   1. Use the WebID profile to find a Collection for sending mail like
> content
> >>   2. POST a mail like entity there after authenticating with WebID
> >>      ( now that gives us secure mail )
> >>
> >> Pingback
> >> --------
> >>
> >>    similar to Restful Mail, but simpler
> >>
> >>
> >> Friend of a friend Access
> >> -------------------------
> >>
> >>  Allow friends of friends access to some resources
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So we have a page for this here which we started a few years back
> >>
> >>  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements
> >>
> >> I think it is time to work on that one again.
> >>
> >> Henry
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html
> >>
> >> Social Web Architect
> >> http://bblfish.net/
> >>
> >
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>