Re: API thoughts

On 01/28/2015 09:54 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> I kind of like the trick of having the identifier for the account (aka
>> persona) also be the URL for the profile.  I'd also make that the root URL
>> for the user's webspace.   EG http://tantek.com/  or
>> http://sandhawke.livejournal.com/
>>
>> I know some people don't like that, though, so maybe we can't collapse the
>> three.    Still, it's painful to have the identifier for the account/persona
>> not be either of those two URLs.    If it's not one of those, what is it,
>> and how can we make sure people understand it and use it correctly?
>>
> 
> I agree that it would be ideal to collapse these but I don't believe
> we can get away with it entirely. For instance, within IBM we have a
> corporate "Intranet ID" which is essentially our work email addresses.
> We use these ID's to log in to various services internally, including
> our internal deployment of our Connections product. We have a couple
> of different systems that provide a Profile that describes an
> individual. The Connections Profile is distinct from our Corporate
> Employee Directory profile although there is a trend towards combining
> the two. In this case, the two profiles have distinct URL identifiers
> separate from our "Intranet ID" identifier.
> 
> Using the rough sketch model I describe above, an instance of this
> would look like:
> 
> <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> a :Identity, :Persona ;
>   describedBy <http://directory.example.org/?id=jasnell@us.ibm.com>,
>           <http://connections.example.org/profiles?id=abc123> .
> 
>  <http://directory.example.org/?id=jasnell@us.ibm.com> a :Profile ;
>   describes <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> .
> 
> <http://connections.example.org/profiles?id=abc123> a :Profile ;
>   describes <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> .
> 
> Now again, this is just a rough sketch model to help frame the
> conversation. I'm not arguing that this is how we have to model the
> API... only that these are the conceptual elements we need to be
> thinking about.
I understand that you don't use webfinger and acct: scheme?

We discussed depending on webfinger recently:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Nov/0201.html