W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Standardising the foaf+ssl protocol to launch the Social Web

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:30:36 +0200
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Jeffrey Jaff <jeff@w3.org>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <44F2F066-F74E-4864-B8E2-175335F5BB34@w3.org>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Adding www-archive@w3.org; quotes snipped heavily.  The earlier parts of the thread are archived here:
	http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-July/002653.html

On 5 Jul 2010, at 19:07, Henry Story wrote:

> Many of our implementations can understand RDF/XML, Turtle, RDFa, and some
> forms of  RDFised JSON even. The community finds these way more than enough 
> to work on. 

Yet, interoperability requires an agreement on the vocabulary that you use (and a choice of format).

> We proposed a paper at the W3C Workshop on Privacy Aware, Trusted Web APIs
> 
>  http://esw.w3.org/PrivacyAwareWeb
> 
> We are still awaiting a decision as to whether we can present there. 

The paper was accepted by the program committee for participation, but not for presentation.  I thought that decision had been made clear.

>> research institutions,
> 
>   There are at least 3 universities in the UK that have done research on 
> this protocol, tying it in with work on SOAP, other security protocols (Manchester) and more. There are  reasearchers at MIT who have written 
> papers on this too. The wiki has a lot of those links, but I keep  discovering new ones all the time. 
> 
> (note to the foaf-protocols mailing list: please send us pointers to your papers, so we can add them to the wiki, let's fill out that section clearly)

pointer to the link list, for those of us who don't live and breathe foaf+ssl?

>> In particular, if the community around OpenID could get together with the
>> community around WebID, we'd have a great combination.
> 
> We have examples of foaf+ssl tying in with many other protocols:
> 
>  - OpenID: the http://openid4.me/ service shows how using the openid
>    protocol and the foaf:openid relation allows any WebID to function
>    as an OpenId

It ties in with OpenID in the same way in which user names and passwords, SAML, Infocard, and really any other sign on system ties in with OpenID: There's an OpenID provider that recognizes its user by that user's identity in the other system.  Perhaps that OpenID provider forwards some information about the WebID that was used to the relying party.

To me, some of the interesting questions are:

- Where do the use cases for the two protocols overlap?
- Where do the use cases *not* overlap?
- What are the benefits of using one over the other in the cases where they overlap?
- Is it possible to bring the benefits of either protocol to the other, or are the use cases distinct enough that both need to exist next to each other?

Those questions sound like material for a useful discussion with some of the communities that aren't currently following WebID.
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 08:49:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:31 GMT