- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:57:41 -0400
- To: public-rww@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3bd1df59-5aee-b752-68c8-726b5ebd2fcd@openlinksw.com>
On 7/27/21 1:01 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 17:58, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com
> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
> On 7/27/21 5:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 at 04:22, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 02:34 AM, Melvin Carvalho
>>> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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/
>>>> <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
>>>> <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
>>>> <mailto:public-webid@w3.org> (subscribe
>>>> <mailto: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
>>> <http://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.
>
>
> Let them, at the end of the day freedom should reign supreme :)
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> There isn't a "one size fits all" solution to this matter.
>
> Folks should simply build around an abstract core and ship apps
> and services. The notion of one spec adopted by the world will not
> work, IMHO.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> It is 100% about being abstract.
>
>
> Why is it 100% about being abstract?
Because that's how you negate politics.
An Entity Relationship Graph is simply a technique for representing
logic i.e, things are related to other things in a variety of ways.
> ie what's the benefits and what are the possible abstractions?
>
Abstraction ensures loose-coupling of:
1. Identity -- enabled using a variety of Identifier types
2. Identification -- Credentials Documents
3. Authentication -- TLS, OpenID Connect, either + WebID, NetID, etc.
(with or without delegation)
4. Authorization -- RBAC (Role-based Access Controls) or ABAC
(Attribute-based Access Controls)
5. Storage -- Filesytems or DBMS
This trumps any notion of a golden spec that will be mass adopted by
programmers, developers, engineers (of any variety).
Apps will always trump specs i.e., specs simply provide frameworks for
App interoperability. Specs cannot precede App development, as history
has demonstrated, repeatedly.
There wasn't a spec for the Web prior to its explosion. Basically, It
exploded before the creation of a custodial organization like W3C aimed
at ensuring interoperability by way of infrastructure standardization.
--
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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2021 17:58:01 UTC