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

Re: Matter of DN and what's possible

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:12:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0B3C38.6010008@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/9/12 1:53 PM, J├╝rgen Jakobitsch wrote:
> hi,
>
> just a short in-between-question :
>
> are we talking about something like the bug i fixed today (see one of my last mails)
> with this example-uri :
>
> webIDClaim (in the cert): http://2sea.org/sea.rdf#j
>
> where the location of document is @ http://2sea.org/sea.rdf but there are only statements about http://2sea.org/sea.rdf,
> in which case i could verify the claim, if i had two fields in the cert, the location of the document and resource which is
> to be verified?

Yes, so you are posing the same question, but without using a sparql 
constuct URL. Basically, in SAN you could have the following:

1. http://2sea.org/sea.rdf#j  -- a HTTP URI based Subject Name
2. http://2sea.org/sea.rdf-- a HTTP URL based descriptor (information) 
resource address.

Also what about the following in SAN:

1. http://2sea.org/sea.rdf#j  -- a HTTP URI based Subject Name
2. http://2sea.org/something/sea.rdf-- a HTTP URL based descriptor 
(information) resource address that still describes 
<http://2sea.org/sea.rdf#j> .

Or:
1. mailto:j@2sea.org -- a mailto: scheme URI based Subject Name
2. http://2sea.org/something/sea.rdf-- a HTTP URL based descriptor 
(information) resource address that still describes <mailto:j@2sea.org> .


Kingsley

> wkr j
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kingsley Idehen"<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 7:42:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Matter of DN and what's possible
>
> On 1/9/12 1:35 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> Ok. So now you have two URLs where before we had one. That is why the previous talk about URIs being a luxury does not make sense. Your solution requires more of them.
>>
>>>>>>   And if it is a URL then why is that not just the place of a WebID then?
>>>>
>>>>   Because you will ultimately quibble about its complexity.
>> Why, I have always supported multiple SANs in the certificate. No issue there.
>>
>    One point re. the above. Imagine the following scenario:
>
> I have a sparql construct URL as my address (and compacted using a
> shortener), and a HTTP URI based Name as the subject Name. Both URIs
> placed in SAN of my x.509 cert. Would your verifier work? Do you deem
> this acceptable re. WebID spec as it currently stands?
>
> Note: the SPARQL URL resolves to a description graph. The other URI is
> the Subject described by said graph.
>


-- 

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 Monday, 9 January 2012 19:13:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 January 2012 19:13:22 GMT