- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:31:52 -0400
- To: public-rww@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50915278.3090901@openlinksw.com>
On 10/31/12 12:10 PM, Nathan wrote: > Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 10/31/12 10:46 AM, Nathan wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I'd propose the following >>> >>> Definitions: >>> >>> WebID >>> An HTTP URI with a #fragment which denotes an agent, when >>> dereferenced a description of the denoted agent is provided in Turtle. >>> >>> Authenticated-WebID >>> A WebID which has been authenticated using WebID-Protocol >>> >>> >>> WebID Protocol Requirements: >>> >>> subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI and SHOULD contain a >>> #fragment ... >>> >>> WebID profiles ... MUST be in Turtle, and MAY be made available in >>> other machine readable formats such as ... >>> >>> WebID Verification Agents ... MUST support Turtle ... SHOULD support >>> other machine readable formats. >>> >>> Kingsley: I believe this would encourage best practise and push >>> people towards #frags and turtle for interoperability, but also >>> allow your and everyone's tooling to be conforming even when >>> supporting ProxyURIs and the like. >> >> No, because it invalidates all our work, in a nutshell. You are >> basically pushing a definition that ensures our hash-less proxy URIs >> will be marginalized by newer WebID verifiers. That definition tosses >> the WebID work we've done -- based on the AWWW and Linked Data >> principles -- in the bin, in a nutshell. >> >> You are pushing a new definition that rewards an early adopter >> (OpenLink) by invalidating its work. Again, we haven't implemented >> anything outside the realms of AWWW or Linked Data principles, and >> the end result is marginalization. > > This certainly isn't the intention. > > Striving to find a way of wording these constraints to make adoption > and interoperability simple, whilst rewarding people like yourself and > OpenLink who have went over and above to do WebID+++. > > Not to preclude or marginalize anything, but to promote and > standardize a common simple set of the available options, and have > everything else as enhancements / extensions / integration which > broaden the scope to be web wide. > > To clarify for the remainder of this convo, can you confirm which of > these statements you would support / reject: > > subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI and SHOULD contain a #fragment .. -1 The kills off the work we've done re. hooking LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, G+, WordPress, etc.. into WebID realm. > > WebID profiles ... MUST be in Turtle, and MAY be made available in > other machine readable formats such as ... 0 It doesn't break our proxy URIs since we have full support for content negotiation including QoS algorithms on the document publication side. > > WebID Verification Agents ... MUST support Turtle ... SHOULD support > other machine readable formats. 0 Our verifiers also leverage content negotiation and our sponger transformation services, so it doesn't matter. Question: Doesn't the current definition imply that WebID-authentication protocol based verifiers are going to be looking for hash URIs in Certificate SANs as part of their implementation? I believe the answer to that question is yes, and the end-result being that lexical space parsing will lead to faults when hashless URIs are encountered in X.509 cert. SAN slots. Again, that kills off our proxy URIs. Kingsley > > Best, > > Nathan > >> Your definition is conflating implementation details with concept >> definition. A WebID is a verifiable URI. This kind of identifier can >> be verified using a variety of protocols. An example of such a >> protocol is the WebID authentication protocol. >> >> The WebID protocol uses RDF model based structured data and entity >> relationship semantics to determine that a WebID's referent is >> associated with a Public Key, and by implication its private key. >> >> > > > -- 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 Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:32:14 UTC