- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:52:23 -0400
- To: public-fedsocweb@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4FF87757.7070202@openlinksw.com>
On 7/7/12 6:35 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote: > Note that webfinger is important at the moment you action a friend > request. once two people are friends, you no longer need webfinger, > because you have other ways to communicate. But without webfinger, the > only way to send a friend request is by using a centralized database. You have URIs and Resolvers. A URI is a vehicle for many things, including federated identity. A URI that specifically identifies an Agent (human or machine) *can* resolve to a resource (a document) that bears content that basically represents its profile, using indirection. You can achieve what I stated above unintuitively (but at low cost) using a http: URI. You can also achieve it intuitively (but at higher cost) using an acct: scheme URI and the Webfinger protocol (which is http based). To conclude, neither http: nor acct: based agent URIs monopolize federated identity. We need to stop preoccupying ourselves with implementation details. -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2012 17:52:48 UTC