W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: WebID equivalence

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:33:41 -0500
Message-ID: <4F049B85.2010008@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/4/12 1:03 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 4 January 2012 17:46, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> On 1/4/12 10:58 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> Linked Data is about using networks (graph structures and hypertext
>>> structures, cleverly combined) to describe things. In some
>>> circumstances, one or the other aspect takes primacy; and in some
>>> circumstances, one or the other side can be a bit of a burden. That's
>>> fine so long as we don't insist too heavily that all good data must
>>> fit some rigid template of being hypertext-published interconnected
>>> graphs.
>>
>> WebID is insisting heavily without accepting burden related realities for:
>>
>> 1. developers of WebID verifiers
>> 2. publishers of identity oriented claims.
>>
>> This is what I fear will lead to bootstrap inertia, inevitably.
>>
>> The goal in its most basic form boils down to testing for "mirrored claims"
>> about identity across an idp space (on a network) and a local key store.
>> This goal is achievable without surfacing some of the more burdensome
>> aspects of Linked Data. IMHO. graph portability is the most important factor
>> of all. The claims graph should be loosely coupled to the network.
> I'm a huge fan of loose coupling.
>
> Right now we have 2 concepts : WebID and The WebID Protocol
>
> WebID
> =======
>
> An IDENTIFIER Coupled to:
> URIs -- Yes
> HTTP -- encouraged
>
>
> The WebID Protocol 1.0 (Draft)
> ===========================
>
> An AUTHENTICATION method coupled to:
> WebID -- Yes
> X.509 -- Yes
> HTTP -- Yes
> TLS -- Yes
> RDF -- Yes
>
>
> So at this point, we have a general concept and a specific protocol.
> Can sometimes be confusing, due to the naming, even for people in the
> community!
>
> There's generally a trade-off between tolerance, adoption and
> implementation complexity.   I think Kinsley is saying there's a good
> opportunity here, to finding a "sweet spot" without too much resorting
> to trial and error.

Yes, in a nutshell.

We are trying to make the WWW better albeit via its data space 
dimension.  We don't want do disrupt the WWW in its current form 
(information space dimension) as understood and exploited by users and 
developers. Linked Data, WebID etc.. are optional tweaks to the system.

Commercial and Social events ultimately affect the choices that folks 
make. Just look at the WWW today. It was, and still remains, an optional 
component of the Internet. URIs, HTTP, HTML etc.. will always be 
options. Linked Data, WebID etc.. should never deviate from the 
fundamental nature of the WWW.

Kingsley
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

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
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:34:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:34:56 GMT