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

Re: Certificate Triplify Challenge

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:07:13 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <22E78D75-7A69-4F9D-B487-0C0518E319B1@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 11 Jan 2012, at 20:56, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 1/11/12 2:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> That depends on what your definition of the Web is. Tim Berners Lee's definition was "a mapping from URIs onto meaning"
>> http://blogs.oracle.com/bblfish/entry/possible_worlds_and_the_web
>>> >  >  The end destination is inevitable. WebID or NetID, note, I've seen this movie before.
>>> >  >  I say "Check!" so your move next:-)
>> Well if the game is a good spec, then my answer is above. (but perhaps let's not get sidetracked in the meaning of the web, part).

> If you want to hone into definitions, then start with URIs.
> URI abstraction enables one associate URIs with Descriptor Resources for their Referents.

That is not a very clear definition of URIs but I understand what you mean.

There are many ways you can put this. URIs are names for things. ( Sometimes those things are documents, sometimes not. ) When they are not names for documents but for things then you need to find the sense of the URI in order to be able to identify the thing. (Otherwise how would you know which thing it was?) For the sense to be found reliably there has to be a well defined way to get to the sense of that URI. For http urls that is easy: you use the http protocol. 

I don't think we disagree here, and neither does the semantic web disagree with Frege here. The innovation is that the (semantic) web start from URIs that are engineered to make it easy for machines to find the associated sense of the URI. 

Furthermore you know that I know this because of this picture 

which I put in two places you know of:

 - http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID
 - http://www.w3.org/wiki/Foaf%2Bssl/FAQ#How_does_Secure_Authentication_Work_with_FOAF.2BSSL.3F

The second link even comes with an link to an in depth article of Frege's sense reference distinction.

> "Check!"

Well if you check me here, then you check yourself too, since we don't disagree.


Perhaps you can give me some feedback on the other part of the message that you cut off in this response? You know the part where I look at the X509 Subject Alternative Name definition , and where I answer the question you asked about the two URIs? Or is a non answer a "check"?


Social Web Architect
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:07:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:29 UTC