- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:29:26 -0400
- To: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51ACD276.9020201@openlinksw.com>
On 6/3/13 8:11 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > On 3 June 2013 13:43, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com > <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > > 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. > > > OK that makes sense, so: > > I think the core WebID identity spec remains largely consistent in > both cases. > > So which ontology you use depends on your needs. > > If you want to guarantee auth over x.509 with rsa and foaf, you can > use Henry's ontology > > If you want to guarantee auth / signing / encryption / payments use manu's > > Re: the namespace, I think manu's will be at w3id.org > <http://w3id.org> which may actually be better than w3.org > <http://w3.org>, so im unsure there's a need to merge, but that's a > possible route. In a nutshell, Yes! URI everything and everything is Cool! This axiom relegates everything to the level of a puzzle piece in a global jigsaw puzzle (aka. the World Wide Web). That's why I see the sanctity of URI abstraction as the only non negotiable item re., AWWW ingenuity. URIs always allow us apply the wisdom of Solomon to deadlocks :-) If it weren't for URIs the entire RDF affair would have long died (by way of implosion). Basically, without URIs TimBL wouldn't have been able to negate RDF inertia (technical and political) via his Linked Data meme [1] which basically saved the Semantic Web vision. Links: 1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html -- Linked Data meme. Kingsley > > > 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 <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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 17:29:53 UTC