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

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Natanael Arndt <arndtn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:47:55 +0100
Message-ID: <5098502B.3030609@gmail.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Am 06.11.2012 00:35, schrieb Nathan:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 11/4/12 1:18 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> Our solutions are interoperable.  Universal does not mean unique!
>> Wrong again.
>> The solutions in question (re. WebID) are no longer interoperable. A
>> verifier will fault on a hashless URI. It will fault if a profile
>> document isn't comprised of Turtle content. It will also fault on a
>> non http: scheme URI.  You seriously regard that as interoperable?
> This is interesting.
> I viewed the constraints as setting a minimum bar for interoperability.
> Let's say HTTP + Turtle + Hash URI was level 1.0 support.
> Then add in RDF/XML, RDFa, NTriples. JSON-LD to get level 1.8, add in
> acct: or ftp: to get level 2.2, and so forth.
> Each serialization and protocol added to the mix increases the power
> of WebID-protocol, this is a good thing, not to be precluded in any way.
> The Hash-URI thing is a different issue, there are multiple reasons
> they have preference, but it's probably worth me mentioning why I am
> +1 to having hash-http-URIs as the "default" for level 1: It's because
> I see WebID as tying a URI to both parts of a key pair, the TLS side
> binds the URI to the private part, the act of dereferencing ties it
> the URI to the public part, and the public part is already tied to the
> private part. If a slash URI <a> redirects to another document <b>,
> then it's <b> that is tied to the public part, not <a> that's in the
> cert. This to me, opens a lot of questions, and feels like it opens
> the door to exploits, mitm attacks, and doesn't "prove" uri
> ownership/control. Hence why I have a strong a want for #hash URIs
> here. If there's no problem with the redirects and the proofs all work
> out / it's all good, then I'm happy with either (personal preference
> will always be hash's of course).
> Make sense?
But if I own the URI and place a redirect it is still in my control
where the redirect is going and I trust the URI where I'm pointing at or
I make sure it is still under my control. I think a redirect has the
same level of trust as the choice of the URI in the first place.

(I don't know if my +1 counts and where I can put it, but it would go to
general URI)

Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 23:49:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:31 UTC