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

On 6/3/13 7:18 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3 June 2013 13:16, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/3/13 3:26 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     Webkeys allows any type of profile, including FOAF, schema.org
>>     <http://schema.org>, open graph protocol etc. whereas cert is
>>     tied to FOAF.
>>
>>     Webkeys allows associating a key with an account, whereas cert
>>     only associates a key with a FOAF agent.
>>
>>     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. That's why manu did not join the xg, and has made an
>>     independent work.
>>
>>     That all said, done is done, and it would be good to see things
>>     working together now.
>
>     WebKeys is a great compliment to WebID. In a nutshell, having the
>     ability to exploit WebID by having it loosely coupled to X.509
>     certificates is a major contribution to our collective WOT pursuit.
>
>
> Kingsley, do you think implementations should start to adopt webkey as 
> well as the cert ontology?

I for one don't see any ontology as gospel. To me, genius inherent in 
the Web lies in the fact that we can all carve out our own puzzle pieces 
and then stitch them together using logic via relationship semantics.

I do believe in giving URIs to anything of importance since that aids 
Web interactions with data. Thus, I ensure my Public Keys have URIs.

Benefit of denoting Public Keys with URIs?

The benefit (to me) is that when something like Webkeys comes along it 
enables negation of unnecessary control points and controllers. For 
instance, I don't have to wait for those tha control HTTP to figure out 
the utility of the "From: " request header etc.. I can just do my own 
triangulation via the "Authorization: " header and the keyid component 
and the IFP semantics of mailto: scheme URIs.

Key point: don't be distracted by the pursuit of a golden ontology to 
which others will be made to comply. I think part of the problem with 
the Semantic Web is the misconception that it will only work as a result 
of golden ontologies. Personally, I believe the opposite is the case. 
Ontologies are just mini guides for constructing puzzle pieces, so 
taking them beyond that level turns them into distracting control points 
that can impede progress and then generate endless debates etc..  [1].


At this point, as per my mail about "just do it!" mode, we are 
implementing Webkeys as just another addition to our WOT offerings that 
leverages WebID.

Links:

1. 
http://www.slideshare.net/stefandecker1/stefan-decker-keynote-at-cshals/29 
-- problem with ontologies .

Kingsley
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen	
>     Founder & CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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