Re: Use Cases and Requirements document for WebID

On 11 Dec 2012, at 16:42, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> 
> On 11 Dec 2012, at 16:15, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > For what it's worth, I had flushed some ideas at [1].
> 
> These seem relevant
> 
> Use-Cases:
>         • referring to one's identity
>         • WebID-based authentication
>         • WebID-based authorization
> Requirements:
>         • one MUST be able to change one's WebID
>         • one MUST distinguish a WebID (a simple URI for a Web Resource) from a WebID Profile (the Web Information Resource). This SHOULD not rely on dereferencing.
>         • the system MUST take efficiency into account
>         • the system MUST not introduce any incompatility with LDP, especially for Write operations
>         • the Web Profile MUST define a default representation format
>         • the system SHOULD considerer legacy WebIDs (or FOAF/SSL) whenever possible
> 
> I completely agree with all points here. 

Those are good starting points, though really we need to base ourselves on other 
Use Case and Requirement documents so we know what those are meant to look 
like.

The LDP group have one here that is evolving:
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements
which is a wiki for the moment, but which they are working into turning into a 
nicely polished document.

Having a good list of the best the W3C has produced in this space would be 
key.


> 
> It seems to me that we may need to put WebAccessControl into the WebID group, as it
> is very tied to authentication and so to WebID-Authentication over TLS, and is one of
> the key use cases for WebID.
> 
> I agree with mentioning WAC, though not in the identity/profile spec. That spec should always be very very simple. Maybe we can put WAC in a "Use cases and requirements" spec (similar to LDP's), as Henry suggested to me. 
> 
> Also, I believe that pingback and mail are more related to the RWW realm, so we should move to the RWW list when discussing them.

yes, I agree. Pingback and Mail are RWW space, as they are real apps that can be built with LDP+WebID, but require their own ontologies. Others there would be sending "likes", doing blogs, etc... all of which I'd love to implement myself real soon.

> 
> Andrei
>  
> 
>   Henry
> 
> > Alexandre.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/Requirements
> >
> > On 12/11/2012 10:11 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> >> To make some progress, I think we need a use cases and requirements document.
> >>
> >> At TPAC the main interest was to be able to work with the newly emerging
> >> Linked Data Platform group [1]. I don't think that LDP says anything about
> >> 303s so I don't think this is in fact necessarily relevant to the 303 vs hash
> >> debate.
> >>
> >> But it does give us a good reason to have HTTP URIs because we can then use
> >> that platform to do things like the following:
> >>
> >>
> >> Create an account
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >>   ( requires LDP + WebAccessControl )
> >>
> >>   1. Find an a LD Collection that is publicly available and allows creation of containers
> >>   2. create a container that gives default access to the creator ( perhaps using hash id )
> >>   3. creator can POST a WebID Profile to container with public key
> >>
> >> Restful Mail
> >> ------------
> >>
> >>   1. Use the WebID profile to find a Collection for sending mail like content
> >>   2. POST a mail like entity there after authenticating with WebID
> >>      ( now that gives us secure mail )
> >>
> >> Pingback
> >> --------
> >>
> >>    similar to Restful Mail, but simpler
> >>
> >>
> >> Friend of a friend Access
> >> -------------------------
> >>
> >>  Allow friends of friends access to some resources
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So we have a page for this here which we started a few years back
> >>
> >>  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements
> >>
> >> I think it is time to work on that one again.
> >>
> >> Henry
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html
> >>
> >> Social Web Architect
> >> http://bblfish.net/
> >>
> >
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/