W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > January 2015

Re: API thoughts

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 05:55:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdXUP8KOp7c0k12sy_su=7DV0Nwymf8piP7tV=1wZNXvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-socialweb@w3.org
If we decide to use WebFinger here, then so be it. I personally feel it's
easily possible to do significantly better.
On Jan 30, 2015 4:15 AM, "☮ elf Pavlik ☮" <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 13:55:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:14 UTC