Re: Web Identity 1.0 -- Draft Spec

If you decoupled the apps in Ods from the ods rww-ld storage environment, how would it work?

Say, the addressbook, the briefcase, bookmarks are stored separately on one or more rww-ld storage services / accounts.

Would people have to use your ods storage platform? (Understand their currently components?)

Say, I want to migrate my data to another platform, or say - I set-up a company, and want to migrate the r&d records to a separate data space, does it have to be ods?

Like a FAT hdd, do I have to use one? Can I go get another and easily transfer the records with the ability to easily navigate to the new locations?

What are the baseline "apps" for the "cloud storage" (rww-ld) platform, and what standards are required to make that work in a distributed environment. 

I very much appreciate the enormous contributions made by the members of the list, and my "newbie" status ;) I've been working in it in different ways since 2000, but from different levels, and the standards kinda work is an exciting (with all humility) new step.

All seems a bit like creating a new "Linux" in a way, same same but different ;)

If people are to get what we're trying to gift them, it can't rely upon an existing "hosted" id: it can of course be linked: but therein are the semantics of a freeman.

Lots of food for thought.  Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

> On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:50 am, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/9/14 10:21 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>> I think I've used, built every known webid enabled service / system / platform out there, i'll make a list at some stage: from a user perspective, it's very confusing...
> 
> Again, WebID is a colloquialism (so to speak) for an HTTP URI that denotes an Agent i.e., an Entity that's of type foaf:Agent. That's it. 
> 
> You are using a WebID whenever you de-reference (lookup) the description of what an HTTP URI denotes, where the referent of said URI is a person, organization, software, robot, or anything else capable of mechanized operations. 
> 
>> 
>> I honestly do not think it describes a human well, or acknowledge a specific human on a keyboard.
> 
> A WebID doesn't describe a human. It denotes a human. Basically, in regards to Linked Data, an HTTP URI (e.g., a WebID) functions like a "Term" in that it resolves to a description of what it denotes i.e., its referent [1].
>>  It's a necessarily element, like a bank-card to an account holder - but the card or the account, is not the person and the account / card can be labelled as to describe a relation, rather than the person: therein, agent.
> 
> A bank card (or any other identity card) is like a profile document comprised of identity oriented claims that are verifiable by the card's issuer. Hence my reference to "Identity Card" which is what a WebID resolve to etc..
> 
> An Identity Card is comprised of a collection of statements about a Subject. The Subject in question still needs to be denoted by an identifier, so you end up with two distinct things:
> 
> 1. Identifier that denotes the description subject -- entity of type foaf:Agent
> 2. Identifier that denotes the description document -- entity of type foaf:Document . 
> 
>> 
>> Webid to users means login with a certificate.
> 
> Yes, I will concede that the misconception in question is real. Its the by product of an initial narrative that overreached  :-(
> 
>>  I've now got so many certificates, and I think I've even lost some - don't even remember the services I lost them from; and let's not get into early bitcoin mining testing; anyhow, it probably should mean, I have authorised devices, accounts, relationships, agreements: that can do predefined tasks without my direct intervention (unless I've set out a flag, or whatever).
> 
> Having many identifiers and identity cards is a good thing. Entropy is ultimately how we are going to get out of the current privacy mess created by Web 2.0 patterns and solutions. 
> 
>> 
>> So, I recon the identity chain isn't finished yet, unless everything is public except for what programmers develop and manage specifically, which isn't the mission...
> 
> The identity chain cannot be a static thing. The conceptual dependency graph is already in place due to the existence of relevant open standards, covering all the key impact areas. 
> 
> Our biggest challenge boils down to getting out of the habit of creating new standards afresh, from limited industry knowledge and experience, as a gut reaction to emergent problems. 
> 
>> 
>> Leaky abstraction threatening standards interoperability (not many webid users out there ATM) vs. one ring to rule them all - there's a few other options... 
> 
> No, the is but one option: use existing open standards (where such exist) to solve current and future problems. This is what the architecture of the World Wide Web has put on a platter for years, but there remains a tendency to not thoroughly understand the dexterity inherent in this utterly wonderful piece of work!
> 
>> 
>> In theory, every user becomes an identity provider to some level: even if it's simply acknowledging they own a computer and an account where they provide access to resources to others. 
> 
> Every user has to be their own identity provider. It shouldn't require ownership of a domain. It should simply boil town to verifiable identity card ownership and authorship. 
> 
>> 
>> At the moment, identity providers are centralised.  So I think it's functionally quite different.
> 
> See my comments above. I have zero interest in centralized solutions because they are all inherently flawed, especially in the context of the World Wide Web. 
> 
>> 
>> Just ideas, I'll keep thinking.
>> 
>> Notes below.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 1:04 am, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 1/8/14 10:27 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>>> re: G+[1] i agree with Kingsley almost; and the underlying differentiation, is in seeking to define 'persona' as a separate 'identity' for the purpose of identity management. 
>>>> 
>>>> Some ideas (sorry for the length; ideas are still draft).
>>>> 
>>>> WEBID
>>>> There's a couple of different sorts of 'things' that interact.  WebID seems to make the most sense for 'things that speak internet' (and knows what to do with a cert).  
>>>> WebID [2] seems to provide a method to deploy x509 with RDF, which is beneficial for IoT / WoT; therefore reinforcing identity / privacy methods, especially when applied to an RWW Account (LDP / RDF + storage + base services
>>> 
>>> Not really. A WebID is a term that refers to the use of HTTP URIs for denoting (naming or "referring to") agents (entities such as people, organizations, sofware, robots, and anything else capable of mechanized operation). Its sole purpose is entity denotation, that's it. 
>>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID Or updated version https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/index.html
>> 
>>> Unfortunately, during the early days of WebID, it got conflated with  Discovery and Authentication, as reflected in your characterization above re. X.509  and RDF. 
>>> 
>>> In recent times the following have been established to be distinct:
>>> 
>>> 1. WebID 
>> 
>> So, foaf?  What's different here from foaf.
> 
> See my earlier comments about what a WebID is about.
> 
> Links:
> 
> [1] http://bit.ly/15tk1Au -- HTTP URI based denotation illustrated . 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>