Re: Pingback changes/improvements

On 15 May 2012, at 16:27, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 12 May 2012 19:46, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> I am back in France, so I'll have time to look at this and
> other things more closely soon.
> 
> I think it would be nice if we could publish
>  https://resourceme.bergnet.org/spec-pingback
>  and an updated version of
>  http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/05/09/
> on read-write-web community group space.
> 
>  I also think it would be useful to update it with the
> Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 in mind,
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/02/
> 
> though I think one should wait for the new working group
> to come to some conclusions there.
> 
> Thanks Henry
> 
> We've also put together a wiki page containting all these links, one to the W3 wiki, one to bergi's new spec proposal, your friending paper and the original pingback protocol.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/rww/wiki/Pingback
> 
> It would be great if you had a chance to review.

yes. as we get more implementations perhaps we can publish it on the community group
web page. You can publish documents too right? 

Not a big hurry, but it makes more sense for this to be on w3c community group, than on
my web server.

> 
> Perhaps more importantly.
> 
> Maybe it's possible can add a matrix or RWW systems that support pingback and how results for interoperability tests.

yes.

> 
> The ones I know of so far:
> 
> Openlink Data Space
> My Profile
> Resource Me
> 
> In progress
> 
> data.fm 
> others?
> 
> One thing that I thought if that may be nice is the following.  If Alice sends a ping to Bob, perhaps Bob could receive an email to his foaf : mbox saying 
> 
> "You have received one new message -- please click the following link to check your inbox"  
> 
> ... of something similar?
>  
> 
> Henry
> 
> On 12 May 2012, at 16:20, bergi wrote:
> 
> > My ResourceMe managed WebID profile [1] finally supports Pingback. I've
> > implemented it slightly different than the spec defines currently. The
> > reason for this was lack of covering the endpoint authentication use
> > case. Authentication is very important, also in the early stages,
> > otherwise people may compare it to SMTP, with all the implicated spam
> > and spoofing problems. With WebID we have already an elegant way to
> > solve this problem. But also we should have a look at the other
> > authentication mechanisms that require a page flow. So here a link to my
> > proposed spec changes/improvements [2].
> >
> > [1] https://www.bergnet.org/people/bergi/card#me
> > [2] https://resourceme.bergnet.org/spec-pingback
> >
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/