W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [foaf-dev] Re: RDFAuth: an initial sketch

From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:11:07 +0200
Cc: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, semantic-web@w3.org, rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org
Message-Id: <C930C594-9B45-442E-9BF3-9EC0298CD444@bblfish.net>
To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>

On 2 Apr 2008, at 02:14, Peter Ansell wrote:
>
> On 01/04/2008, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Story Henry wrote:
>>
>>> My feeling is that what is needed is to see how this could be made  
>>> to
>>> work better with SSL.
>> I've already posted a message suggesting an HTTPS-based solution.
>>
>>  Message-ID: <62649.81.2.120.180.1206622777.squirrel@goddamn.co.uk>
>>  Subject: Re: [foaf-dev] Re: privacy and open data
>>  Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:59:37 -0000 (UTC)
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>>  1. Client requests public FOAF
>>  2. FOAF contains rdf:seeAlso with URI for HTTPS private FOAF
>
> Why does FOAF insist on making things non-specific with seeAlso.

That's not FOAF insisting. That was Banjamin insisting. :-) I think  
clearly specifying
some information on the type of resource - is it a RDFAuth_sketch or a  
OpenId protected
endpoint? - makes sense. Furthermore it would allow the two protocols  
to grow up side by side.

Henry

> If
> you can make up a term that may be more understandable than ideally
> you should. Ie, foaf:restrictedVersion or something like that so
> someone knows why on earth they are following the URL and what they
> should expect to occur after that given their knowledge of the term.
>
> Peter



Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 07:11:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:03 UTC