W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > September 2012

Fwd: Foaf in discovey doc

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:59:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+=BruYjthmce_Ar_S94NRaW6cWfTTU8Le5kwUmwBjK=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
FYI: "I'm not opposed to looking at JSON-LD" from the mozilla identity team

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: 19 September 2012 06:17
Subject: Re: Foaf in discovey doc
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>,
dev-identity@lists.mozilla.org



 On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

Are you considering, since the spec allows additional Json objects in the
Idp's discovery file, of placing within a (Json-serialized) foaf card?

Do you mean in the user certificate? We're thinking about attributes /
claims, but we don't have an immediately compelling use case for them just
yet.

The pubkeys in Jwk format can then be described also in the cert ontology
from the foaf+sdk groups. As I showed last year, even a URL-serialized x509
version of the self-signed pubkey could exist within that graph, able to be
asserted as being equivalent to other entities...

Folks doing linked data persona can then nicely add value, without getting
in the of core interoperability.

I'm not opposed to looking at JSON-LD, for example, but remember, these
certificates are not meant to be publicized (though it's not a big deal if
they are.) Is there value to complicating the data format given that?

-Ben
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 17:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:34 UTC