W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > October 2012

Re: WebID, WebID Protocol definitions and requirements.

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:10:47 +0000
Message-ID: <50914D87.7060701@webr3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rww@w3.org
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 10/31/12 10:46 AM, Nathan wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I'd propose the following
>>
>> Definitions:
>>
>> WebID
>> An HTTP URI with a #fragment which denotes an agent, when dereferenced 
>> a description of the denoted agent is provided in Turtle.
>>
>> Authenticated-WebID
>> A WebID which has been authenticated using WebID-Protocol
>>
>>
>> WebID Protocol Requirements:
>>
>> subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI and SHOULD contain a #fragment ...
>>
>> WebID profiles ... MUST be in Turtle, and MAY be made available in 
>> other machine readable formats such as ...
>>
>> WebID Verification Agents ... MUST support Turtle ... SHOULD support 
>> other machine readable formats.
>>
>> Kingsley: I believe this would encourage best practise and push people 
>> towards #frags and turtle for interoperability, but also allow your 
>> and everyone's tooling to be conforming even when supporting ProxyURIs 
>> and the like.
> 
> No, because it invalidates all our work, in a nutshell. You are 
> basically pushing a definition that ensures our hash-less proxy URIs 
> will be marginalized by newer WebID verifiers. That definition tosses 
> the WebID work we've done -- based on the AWWW and Linked Data 
> principles -- in the bin, in a nutshell.
> 
> You are pushing a new definition that rewards an early adopter 
> (OpenLink) by invalidating its work. Again, we haven't implemented 
> anything outside the realms of AWWW or Linked Data principles, and the 
> end result is marginalization.

This certainly isn't the intention.

Striving to find a way of wording these constraints to make adoption and 
interoperability simple, whilst rewarding people like yourself and 
OpenLink who have went over and above to do WebID+++.

Not to preclude or marginalize anything, but to promote and standardize 
a common simple set of the available options, and have everything else 
as enhancements / extensions / integration which broaden the scope to be 
web wide.

To clarify for the remainder of this convo, can you confirm which of 
these statements you would support / reject:

subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI and SHOULD contain a #fragment ..

WebID profiles ... MUST be in Turtle, and MAY be made available in other 
machine readable formats such as ...

WebID Verification Agents ... MUST support Turtle ... SHOULD support
other machine readable formats.

Best,

Nathan

> Your definition is conflating implementation details with concept 
> definition. A WebID is a verifiable URI. This kind of identifier can be 
> verified using a variety of protocols. An example of such a protocol is 
> the WebID authentication protocol.
> 
> The WebID protocol uses RDF model based structured data and entity 
> relationship semantics to determine that a WebID's referent is 
> associated with a Public Key, and by implication its private key.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:11:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:11:57 GMT