W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > February 2011

position for telecon

From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 03:32:36 -0800
Message-ID: <SNT143-w64585F6524DC63EF761E1092EB0@phx.gbl>
To: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

I may be able to join the 8am PST telecon - though its just not "my medium". If I make it, it will be in listen only mode, assuming I can find the number.
 
Compared to a month ago, I do feel there is solid understanding of the background knowledge sets.
 
Folks have a focussed spec, that exploits a web security niche that works, to introduce a secure reference that extends the logical apparatus of the web architecture.
 
There is debate on whether the incubator scope should be more than the secure reference. Trouble is, the legacy and vendor space is just huge.
 
There is debate whether we should be more problem solving -  stating how to bind the protocol to n legacy infrastrcuture issues: certs, SSL, http headers, dns, secure DNS, ldap, cloud, websso, rest tokens, and more.
 
There is a political mission debate: is the characterization aiming to pursuade legacy buying, legacy change, induce changes in W3C standards, run a working pilot?
 
I know as I reviewed the space over the month, I got more and more convinced that the webid has already carved out its own space, holding its own as an application of the ssl handshake to support the notion of a "secure reference". It fits in, and is already distinguished
 
I have personal qualms on a number of fronts. While I want the reference to point to a RDF file with FOAF/SIOC vocabs, in many ways the secure reference is independent of that logical apparatus. It could be projecting references supported by profiles managed by the facebook world and the ldap world, just as easily.
 
Im personally challenged. I just dont understand W3C culture well enough to know whether we address the web as it is, or the web as its supposed to be. I vascillate between 5 year out research mode and 1 year out product launch mode, not knowing which is appropriate.
 
I have to keep reminding myself that the final dliverable is a report, not a technical specification. Its a recommendation to do more work, given an argument. Any spec is merely supporting evidence.
 
 
  		 	   		  
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 11:33:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:22 UTC