Re: Web Identity specification and Social Web

On 2/24/14 9:46 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 08:25 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> The attributes you've outlined above constitute Identification,
>> based on verifiable Identity. Thus, you are referring to a Web
>> Identification spec whereby a collection of Identity Claims (as
>> you've listed above) are used as the basis for verifiable
>> Identification of an entity denoted by an Identifier.
> I don't disagree with the statement above. :)
>
> I also think that "Web Identification" is going to be a very confusing
> term for most developers.

That's why we make a definition of the term and publish in Linked Data 
form. Terms denote and reference, so a Term without a reference to a 
definition isn't a term at all etc..

I don't expect "Web Identification" to describe itself, that's just a 
phrase (or even a buzz-phrase) while it lacks reference to a 
description/definition.

>   It's not immediately obvious how "WebID", "Web
> Identifiers" and "Web Identification" are different.

True, based on the broken memes of yore, so let's fix them.

>   I'm sure the OpenID
> Connect folks have had loads of discussions about this.

WebID and OpenID are only similar in regards to CamelCase. That's it :-)

>   We should see if
> we can re-use the terminology they ended up using (unless it's equally
> awful). :)

We need real webby terms (i.e., Linked Data) as the vehicle for 
introducing concepts that literate folks can understand.

>
>> Note, the following are loosely coupled:
>>
>> 1. Web Identity spec -- this is just about entity denotation e.g., a
>>   WebID (which is just an HTTP URI used to denote entities of type:
>> foaf:Agent)
> +1, although I don't think we need a spec to say: "An identity is
> denoted via a URL".

Yes, but we know have a broken meme issue that's lead to the requirement 
for a spec. Remember, there is a spec for a URL [1] where a URL is an 
identifier that denotes a Document Location/Address (which also 
effectively serves as the Document Name).
>
>> 2. Web Identification -- this covers identity claims associated with
>> a WebID (for instance) or other Identifiers (e.g., those supported
>> by OAuth)
> +1
>
>> 3. Web Identification Verification -- this would be about protocols
>> for verifying identity claims.
> I don't see much point in decoupling #2 and #3 other than design purity.

You have to loosely couple everything to prevent silos. Conflation is a 
silos best friend, eternally.

>
> How you make a claim about an entity should probably be verifiable to be
> useful to the Web platform.

You would use a common example to make this all comprehensible e.g., a 
Passport or Drivers License is a Document that Identifies an entity (via 
the claims that make up the document). The Passport or Driver's License 
Number are the identifiers that denote the entity identified (described) 
by either document.

> Having the former without the latter is not
> very useful from a Web Payments perspective (and this is why the badly
> named "Web Identity" spec includes both the expression and protocol for
> modification of claims).

A Payment is made by one entity to another entity. A transaction 
describes the payment.
>
> -- manu
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen