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

Re: slow down and organize

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:08:04 +0100
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <47224BB0-4A42-440B-BC59-8B02FF06E6EC@bblfish.net>
To: nathan@webr3.org

On 23 Feb 2011, at 18:49, Nathan wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I admit it, I've lost track - to be honest I think almost everybody has, can somebody who hasn't lost track write up a mail explaining where we are now?

Yes, that is a bit what we discussed at the teleconf. We have a lot of issues opened that can give an overview of how big this space is. Much too big if we're not careful to narrow it down. 

We did open one Issue-42 (meaningOfLife) [0] during the telconf "Describe the abstract WebId architecture"
So it's something like: a WebID tied to a public key that can be used to prove via reference the validity of a WebID claim. 

But then we need to add restrictions. We are not going to be wanting to do this for every level of abstraction, and every connection protocol. There is no need for us to try to cover the work of the keyassure/dane IETF group [1] who are doing something incredibly close to what we are doing, but at the DNS level.

What we are interested is is simply put RESTful, web architecture, Linked data ready, browser enabled secure authentication, with minimal short term change, keeping things as open as possible, so that we don't need to decide on the many, many, many issues in this space.

> I strongly feel we need to get a grip of the issues, group them together, work out what's in scope and what's out of scope, focus on some things and start getting a good sense of where we actually are, perhaps it's just me, but really, at the moment I don't have a clue, it almost feels like we've moved discussions in to re architecturing a huge chunk of internet security, rather than WebID (which I've always taken to mean Web Identification / Web Identifiers).

yes. I agree we need to focus. We can take the issues we have open, and work out which ones are those that fit the criteria above the most. We should try to have no more than one or two at a time under discussion.

> 
> There are currently 48 issues, and there is no order of precedence, no real dependencies listed, and no kind of grouping. We need to sorth that.

yes.

> 
> Additionally, the volume of mail is such that I certainly can't keep up, and when I try to half the mails make no sense as they're completely out of context - my main worry is that I devote about 80 hours a week to the w3c groups, and if I can't make head nor tail of it, how can anybody else?

agree. I would like  to do some development work for Clerezza myself, and work on the Federated Social Web Incubator group.

> Can we do something about this, either discuss on list or hold an interim clean-up / focus meeting asap.

Some suggestions for focusing: 

- Perhaps we can focus on cleaning up the spec a little bit so that it describes what our implementations actually do. Real text and or git/hg changes are welcome there.
- develop the test cases so that we can test our implementations and the spec
- tie in the use cases from the Social Web XG that fit into our use cases wiki

That should help focus.

Henry


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nathan

[0] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/42
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dane/draft-ietf-dane-protocol/

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:08:43 UTC

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