Re: Cert Ontology and WebKeys (Re: WebID History - is also: Webid Editor/Author issue)

On 3 June 2013 10:02, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 3 Jun 2013, at 09:26, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > 1.
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57481166-93/oauth-2.0-leader-resigns-says-standard-is-bad/-- what I think Henry is concerned about (also triggered my questions to
>> Manu about his WebID criticisms)
>>
>> yes. Small is beautiful.
>>
>> I have not looked at Manu's work because I am overwhelemed with work
>> myself, and I am sure he is too.
>
>
> I appreciate that you have limited time, but I think it would be more
> positive for the group, to make sure the current specs are maintained and
> published than to go chasing authorship issues.
>
>
> And I would appreciate if after years following this work you started
> learning a just bit of semantic web basics, so
> that we don't have to spend weeks pointing out to you obvious things such
> as to list a few from the recent past:
>
>  -  our spec is not inconsistent with giving keys URI (as you argued
> recently in this thread)
>  - your attempt to argue for weeks that we should loosen the
> relation between webids and keys
>

I didnt argue that.  I said there is a gap between the theoretical and the
practice.  Case in point, your own webid does not have a URI.

Axiom zero : "Any resource of significance should be given a URI."

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html

I suggested that we try and guide people towards this axiom.  The vast
majority of webids that I see do NOT have a URI.  My argument was to have a
SHOULD, which allows the flexibility we still have.


>  - and more below
>
> But I think
>> he is writing an ontology for keys and signatures. He seems to be putting
>> a lot of work into that, and modulo
>> the need for us to have a inverse functional relation from a WebID to a
>> key ( and not documents to keys ), I'd be very happy
>> if we could re-use his work. Perhaps there is space next to the cert
>> ontology for manu's keys ontology,
>> or perhaps it can just be merged into cert. And of course there Manu
>> would be author and editor.
>>
>
> WebKeys has some significant advantages to the cert ontology in many ways,
> as the cert ontology only does auth, but the webkeys ontology does auth /
> signing / encryption / verification and lays the way for payments.
>
> Cert only allows a subset of keys, such as RSA (indeed RSA is the only
> implemented key in WebID+TLS), webkeys allows any key, including DSA,
> Elliptic curve etc.
>
>
> Very good. I knew Manu or someone else was going to do this, so there was
> no reason for us to waste too much time on it too.
> Small is beautiful, we can re-use the best work.
>

that's great but it means changing the implementations


>
>
> Webkeys allows any type of profile, including FOAF, schema.org, open
> graph protocol etc. whereas cert is tied to FOA
>
>
> We have told you for months now that this is nonsense, so please stop
> making a fool of yourself, by repeating
> it. Your point above reveals your complete lack of understanding of the
> semantic web. Kingsely Idehen and others have
> pointed out to you that { foaf:Agent owl:equivalentClass other:Agent }
> makes it easy to switch between different
> ontologies.
>

Im talking about the current cert ontology.  There are possible solutions,
but until then, you cant claim it's fixed.


>
> Webkeys allows associating a key with an account, whereas cert only
> associates a key with a FOAF agent.
>
>
> You mean WebKeys has a relation from a document to a key. Good.
> WebID *needs* the relation from a WebID to a key, which we called cert:key
> .
>
> There is no incompatibility here.
>

Again you are talking about a theoretical fix, not the current state of
affairs.


>
>
>
> These points have been brought up in the community group and you have each
> argued against them, and made it clear that you were opposed.
>
>
> yes, I argued that clearly for WebID we need the cert:key relation. I
> never argued that other relations could not
> be used ( though they would not express necessarily what we *NEED* )
>
>   That's why manu did not join the xg, and has made an independent work
>
>
> Manu has his reasons for not joining the WebID XG as he had other needs.
> It is good that he has
> done independent work too. There was already enough noise on this mailing
> list, without
> two communities that want to do different things stepping on each others
> toes.
>
> That all said, done is done, and it would be good to see things working
> together now.
>
>
> The beauty about the semantic web is that we can work seperately from Manu
> and still have the results
> be compatible. But one could help make things easier to understand for
> newbies like you by
> putting things into a namespace on the W3C and having it be blessed by
> going through
> the W3C process. That seems to me something for a WG.
>

Henry, I honestly dont mind, but why do you have to make things personal.
I'm not trying to waste your time, the points I have made are accurate.
There are theoretical fixes, but they are not there at this point.  Things
take time in this group, it's been going 5+ years and webkeys only 1-2
years.  Im simply comparing like for like.


>
>
>
>> It seems that putting something like this into the W3C name space would
>> be very useful.
>>
>> >
>> > 2. http://twitter.com/kidehen/status/339748133468786688 -- How to
>> resolve conflicts based on terminology and meaning.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Kingsley Idehen
>> > Founder & CEO
>> > OpenLink Software
>> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>