Re: [foaf-protocols] Privacy concern: different FOAF file depending on what website is asking

I though of a quite different approach : we could define a new ontology
(more or less like the ACL one), but defining which website (or something
more general) has access to which property of the FOAF Agent.

It may require  the server serving the FOAF file to do a SPARQL query (or
something similar) instead of a "basic" server serving a static file.

I think I can write up a prototype before the middle of next week.

Tell me if it sounds stupid or useless.


2011/12/9 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

>  On 12/9/11 6:51 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
>
>  On 9 Dec 2011, at 12:03, Baptiste Lafontaine wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> During the 5th step of actual spec, the WebID verifier contact a distant
> webserver to get the FOAF file.
>
> Obviously, some people don't want to share the same pieces of information
> depending on who is asking.
> For instance :
> - For facebook.com I just want to share my first and last name.
> - For twitter.com I want to share my friend list
> - For linkedin.com I don't want to share anything
> - A more common rules for website I don't know.
>
>
> Is there any work (such as an ontology) done related to this?  I've
> searched in the list archive without success.
>
>
>  Good point. That is why currently in the spec (latest editor's draft
>  here
> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/12/06/index-respec.html  )
>
>  the image has an rdfs:seeAlso to a protected resource.
>
>  But I don't think that was discussed, and though it is not wrong, it is
>  probably too general a relation.
> ( Also we don't have it in the rdf serialisations )
>
>  So I think you raise a good point.
>
>  The WebID Profile document should not be automatically protected or
> otherwise we have the potential of deadlocks
> occurring.
>
>  Perhaps this should also be specified.
>
>  But here I think we need more discussion.
>
>
> We need a property in a owl:subPropertyOf relation with rdfs:seeAlso that
> offers a pathway to an ACL protected resource.
>
> You can also use owl:sameAs relations, but that brings in a need for
> reasoning capability on the part of a WebID verifier. This issue is
> basically ultimately about authorization that factors in pseudonyms via
> handling of co-references etc..
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>  Henry
>
>  PS. perhaps that is something the read-write-web group is interested in
> helping us out with?
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Baptiste Lafontaine
> Etudiant Télécom SudParis
> CV : http://magnetik.org/fr/curriculum-vitae/
> Mobile : +33 (0) 6 75 30 15 33
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>
>    Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing listfoaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.orghttp://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>