- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:42:51 +1000
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2+ZEAxeWo6nwhZ5AMatSfcmjcMe5RwRpZ1_9OfgzDo-A@mail.gmail.com>
NB also; is there any (commercial) reason why FOAF[1][2] is supplied via a .com rather than a .org or similar? was the heritage of the project that the parties sought to ensure that they were provided sufficient dignity, financially, as to support life (ie: income, etc.); or is this infrastructure built on the basis that people were furnished the capacity to care for their own needs; and as such, the infrastructure was built for the public good (a little like the english language, or whatever)... unencumbered, etc... or is this a problem, only 'blockchains' may solve....? Timothy Holborn. [1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ [2] https://whois.domaintools.com/xmlns.com/ On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 21:09, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > Nb: the Web-ID concept (as is distinct to a URI based agent representing, > more specifically, a non natural legal human being); never really dealt > with the concept of agent to agent dynamic semantics very well. At least > not in the documentation. > > So much 'politics' involved... > > Nonetheless; an interpretation (that may well end up being credited to > whomever) is that a WebID is a semantic thoughts are endpoint for human > actors & their associative things (company roles, IoT (or web of things > WoT), software agents, etc. > > I guess the easiest way to make the point clear is that a WebID could be a > sparql (or sadly (?) perhaps also, graphql) endpoint. > > Future is what we make it. I guess the biggest lesson over my time of > being involved in this global BS; is that although there's billions of > human stakeholders, let alone our biosphere stakeholders, > > Very few thinkers as may be temporally shown to have lit a path towards > "good"... > > The hashtag I use is #RealityCheckTech. Kinda important for democracies, > freedom from tyranny, etc. Worthy (akin to worshipful persons) of more > appropriately defined investment; than I can illustrate, historically. > Links welcomed. > > > Timothy Holborn > (Very tired, emotionally). > > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 7:54 pm Melvin Carvalho, <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 04:22, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 7/26/21 1:08 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 18:27, Ted Thibodeau Jr < >>> tthibodeau@openlinksw.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 02:34 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, I see the issue here >>>> >>>> The current WebID spec is in fact tightly coupled to Turtle (and http) >>>> via "MUST" >>>> >>>> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Those who fail to read the "Status of This Document" are >>>> doomed to pain and agony all the days of their implementation. >>>> >>>> To wit: >>>> >>>> This document is produced from work by the W3C WebID Community Group >>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/webid/>. This is an internal draft >>>> document and may not even end up being officially published. It may also be >>>> updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is >>>> inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. The >>>> source code for this document is available at the following URI: >>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID >>>> >>>> This document was published by the WebID CG >>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/webid/> as an Editor's Draft. If you wish >>>> to make comments regarding this document, please send them to >>>> public-webid@w3.org (subscribe >>>> <public-webid-request@w3.org?subject=subscribe>, archives >>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/>). All comments are >>>> welcome. >>>> >>>> Publication as an Editor's Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. >>>> This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other >>>> documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other >>>> than work in progress. >>>> >>>> In other words: This is not a spec, current or otherwise. >>>> >>>> It is very much an Editor's Draft, coming from the discussions >>>> of what was then an Incubator Group, and transformed into a >>>> Community Group, but really reflecting the opinions of the >>>> Chair who was doing double-duty as Editor, much more than of >>>> the group as a whole. >>>> >>>> It does not come close to reflecting consensus of that old XG >>>> (of which I was a member), never mind transition to a Candidate >>>> Recommendation, and further progress down the REC-track was >>>> likewise years away, as there was never a WebID Working Group. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, it should never have received the Respec skin >>>> it has, which makes it *look* like something it isn't, and >>>> at a minimum, W3C should find a way to put the watermarks >>>> now in common use on draft specs in the github.io space onto >>>> all the old draft specs that will otherwise continue to draw >>>> people into thinking that output of one person's keyboard >>>> have the same weight as the work product of several if not >>>> dozens of people intellectual and technical efforts. >>>> >>> >>> Good points. I guess it was last updated over 7 years ago and both of >>> the editors are no longer active >>> >>> And a lot has changed in that time! >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, but it was never a spec endorsed by the W3C. >>> >>> Today, it still isn't a spec endorsed by the W3C. >>> >>> All we have in reality is "WebID" as a colloquialism for an HTTP >>> Identifier that denotes an Agent, and is generally conflated with a >>> protocol for credential verification that goes by the moniker "WebID-TLS" . >>> >> >> Makes sense. Tho WebID still is in use by some of the RDF folks, and I >> think they would argue that RDF/Turtle is mandated. In time that may >> change, but in years probably, given the run rate >> >> >>> I am betting on verifiable credentials working via an emergent de facto >>> protocol that's adopted en masse by developers at some point. However we >>> get there, the following constants will be in play: >>> >>> 1. Logic as the Conceptual Schema >>> >>> 2. Resolvable Identifiers >>> >>> 3. Credentials that manifest as an Entity Relationship Graph comprising >>> Resolvable Identifiers >>> >>> 4. Credential verification protocol >>> >> >> I think what we need is JSON Objects, denoting an Agent, that can >> optionally have a URI. >> >> If it has an abstract model that's fine also, which allows middleware >> solutions, and you can put it in a data store, including redis, mongo, >> browser stores, virtuoso, quad stores etc. >> >> Add an attribute for fingerprint or public key or delegate. This should >> be a single field, rather than more granular terms like modulus/exponent >> etc. which was never completed >> >> Put the fingerprint / key / provider in the doc for proof. Perhaps >> fingerprint should be preferred here. (even ni:/// hashes) >> >> And the same JSON object can be used to create a friend graph, chat, >> signatures, and all sorts of other social functionality, not just auth -- >> this is where we create the real facebook alternative >> >> Align this with real world usage, including fediverse, VCs, but with >> clean separation of Objects and Documents, following from REST like >> principles >> >> ie its really what people are already doing today, so it might not need a >> name as such. But a name and a documentation could help. Perhaps your >> NetID or YouID would be a good code name >> >> I guess what's more important is the documentation and examples. It's a >> bit scattered around on chats, mail lists, blog posts. >> >> Maybe an idea would be to use our wiki to write down some docs and >> >> I looked in our wiki for a page on Identity but couldnt find one. >> Perhaps we could start one or ... >> >> It turns out we have an ancient draft spec for the read write web here; >> >> https://www.w3.org/community/rww/wiki/Draft_Spec#Identity >> >> Which includes an identity section >> >> Maybe it might be a good place to note down ideas from these >> conversations, based on what we've learnt over time -- as it's a wiki feel >> free to dive in -- and perhaps I can do some modernization work ... >> >> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kingsley Idehen >>> Founder & CEO >>> OpenLink Software >>> Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com >>> Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com >>> Weblogs (Blogs): >>> Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog >>> Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog >>> Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers >>> >>> Personal Weblogs (Blogs): >>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen >>> Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ >>> http://kidehen.blogspot.com >>> >>> Profile Pages: >>> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/ >>> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen >>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen >>> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>> >>> Web Identities (WebID): >>> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i >>> : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this >>> >>>
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2021 11:44:41 UTC