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

Re: what are claims mirrors?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:27:57 -0500
Message-ID: <4F14B27D.90600@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/16/12 4:48 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2012, at 21:46, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/12 2:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> Don't reply, or provide a definition, which was the aim of this thread. You provided a few examples, but showed mostly that there is not that much clarity in what is being talked about here.
>>>
>>> My question was simple what is a mirrored claim of a WebId Profile?
>>> - is it just the same triples published somewhere else?
>>> - is it a subset of those?
>>> - are there other triples?
>>>
>>> That would then help make it possible to evaluate the claims that there were proof procedures.
>> Henry,
>>
>> Following a post link in a recent retweet of yours, I came across a blog post [1] that contains this excerpt:
>>
>> "...Assuming the data could be retrieved and the keys match, this tells the consuming service three things:
>>
>> You have access to the corresponding private key (the TLS protocol exchange would have failed if not).
>>
>> ** Because the public keys in the certificate and profile document matched, any assertions made within the profile can be treated as being equivalent to if you made them as part of the certificate itself (and nobody else can make those assertions to you, because their public key wouldnít appear in the profile). **
>>
>> Because the keys match, you have confirmed that you are able to publish information at the URI in your subjectAltName (you canít pick somebody elseís URI, because you donít have the private key corresponding to the public key in their profile). .."
>
> Yes, Mo McRoberts is describing WebID in his post but he does not define a "Claims Mirror". He does not even use the word.

But that doesn't mean he isn't describing the concept in question. 
Identical claims in two places are "mirrored claims".

>   He uses the word "Profile document" which we use in the spec.

Are we debating the spec? Have I asked for the spec to use the phrase 
"mirrored claims" at anytime?

There is a subtle disconnect here and I just don't know how to fix it. 
You are not really understanding what drives my comments because you 
aren't understanding my motivations etc..

Again, I have but a single goal: bootstrapping WebID so that that we get 
to Billions of WebIDs pronto. That's it. I done a lot of standards 
implementation work, and I know what works and what doesn't re. adoption.

>
>
>> I don't see how anyone wouldn't understand "mirrored claims" from the above.
>> Assertions are made in two places that are semantically equivalent in human and machine discernible ways.
> Ok. So this is starting to be a definition.
>
> What it the difference between a cache and a proxy? Or are these the same?
>
>> We are all endowed with the ability to describe the same concepts slightly differently based, on our backgrounds and target audiences. This capability ultimately makes the end product richer, especially when it brings others to the fold that would erstwhile not make obvious connections.
> Yes, but if people keep defining new words every few minutes, then we end up just confusing each other.

But that really isn't the case. Terminology is how one communicates to a 
given audience. Terminology and audiences go hand in hand. Semantic Web 
and Linked Data parlance is quite esoteric when you factor in the 
broader broader user and developer profiles. Sticking to esoteric 
terminology under all circumstances leads to the "too provincial" stigma 
that already undermines most things associated with "The Semantic Web".

BTW - Why did you build a Babel Fish as opposed to asking the world to 
coalesce around specific English words and phrases?

>
>> I am fundamentally interested in engaging as many communities as possible. My focus isn't external to the hard core Semantic Web and Linked Data communities, if it was I would speak in pure Semantic Web parlance -- which I can speak extremely fluently. Trouble is, there is a much broader audience that will benefit from WebID that remain of prime interest to myself and others, and as a result I speak (deliberately) in terms you and others (of the aforementioned Semantic Web and Linked Data profiles) may find alien.
> yes, it is good to engage new communities. But those new communities are not here on this mailing list.

So your point is spec using specific terms on this mailing list? And do 
so irrespective of who maybe passing by trying to understand esoteric 
terminology that makes what they already know appear to be unrelated 
etc.. I deliberately opt not to communicate this way. Why? Because I am 
trying broaden the tent not keep it tiny.

>   Here we are trying to work out how to integrate new ideas and make sure that things can work together, to write a good document so that other communities can join easily.
>
> And it helps me to understand what a claim mirror may be when I am following a conversation here.
>
> As far as I see you have the following triples
>
> <http://joe.example/#joe>  cert:key key ;
>             owl:sameAs<http://other.place/som/doc#123>  .
>
> and exactly the same triples are published:
>
> 1. in the corresponding certificate - but with ASN.1 format
> 2. at<http://joe.example/>
>     or whatever is the :sense of<http://joe.example/#joe>
> 3. at<http://other.place/som/doc>
>     or whatever is the :sense of<http://other.place/som/doc#123>
>
> Is that correct?


There are a set of claims in an x.509 certificate (expressed in ASN.1). 
There are set of claims in a Profile Document (expressed in RDF). 
Semantically, they are mirrors i.e., they hold equivalent claims 
discernible to humans and machines.
>
>> I would like to believe that we are seeking a broader adoption pool for WebID, so let's not keep on distracting ourselves re. these matters.
> We are trying to analyse and test ideas, just as a verifier has to verify that someone really is the person they claim to be. We are testing for soundness of ideas, if you want.

But we are talking about terminology right now. I think soundness of 
idea is really a different topic. At juncture, I though you sought some 
clarity about what I mean by "mirrored claims" etc..

Kingsley

>
>> If I felt WebID was a load of rubbish I wouldn't invest a second of my time on it. At the same time, when something truly matters, I believe in being ready to dish out "tough love."
> Great.
>
> Henry
>
>>
>> Link:
>>
>> 1. http://nevali.net/post/15948503004/what-is-webid
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>


-- 

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, 16 January 2012 23:28:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 January 2012 23:28:25 GMT