- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:40:27 -0500
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, public-webid Group <public-webid@w3.org>
On 12/13/2012 06:19 AM, Henry Story wrote: > [removed read-write-web] > > Hi Nathan, > > I think Alex put that together quite quickly ( and I think he's really busy > writing W3C validators right now ), so we'll need to do a bit of interpretation > of what he intended, trying to use the principles of charity as far as possible > ( ie. don't make the person you are interpreting say something nonsensical ) I find most of Nathan's points valuable. I will reflect that in my document this week-end (can't do it earlier, time is missing). I wish this kind of conversation had happened earlier. For me, WebID is too much of a moving target without such a work. I believe this is why we can't agree on definitions, we don't even agree on what we want to accomplish, and I can't commit much time in these conditions. Alexandre. > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 17:29, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> Henry Story wrote: >>> Use-Cases: >>> • referring to one's identity >> >> "one's"? are we excluding machine agents? >> >> I'd love to go in to detail about referring to the identity of a thing, but will simply propose this is swapped to "providing a reference to an agent", or words to that effect. > > yes. good point. > > Perhaps: > > "For any Agent A with a WebID w, w must globally refer to A". > > I would add: > > "For any Agent A with a WebID w, w must globally refer to A, and the meaning of w must > be discoverable from the name w alone, such that it can be determined that w refers to A" > > ie. we want the meaning of the term w to be defined so that it does not require > backchannels to grasp the meaning. > > I feel like adding "in a Linked Data Space", but I suppose LDP below takes care of that. > >> >>> • WebID-based authentication >>> • WebID-based authorization >> >> WebID-compatible, or WebID-based? > > My guess is that > > "Given that Agent A uses WebID W, W MUST be useable for Authentication and for Authorization of A". > > In any case those are core use cases. > >> >>> Requirements: >>> • one MUST be able to change one's WebID >> >> well... we MUST be able to have multiple WebIDs, and have a preferred or canonical one, the notion of "changing" is a bit strange within the timelessness of RDF. > > Again you are right. There seem to be a few subtopics here: > > 1. Allow any Agent A to have n number of WebIDs, where n>=0 > 2. If an Agent A is widely known to have identity w, allow a method of transition from w to a > new identifier w2, such that the network of trust built up on w can be transferred to w2 > > So that seems to give us another use case: > > • distributed trust or linkability > >> >>> • 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. >> >> Can we keep this to MUSTs and not SHOULDs. > > I think one can keep > • one MUST distinguish a WebID (a simple URI for a Web Resource) from a WebID Profile > > The "SHOULD not rely on dereferencing" part would clearly be a conclusion to be reached in some > other way, but as an initial requirement it seems to need justification, or else we just pushed the > 303 debate into the requirements. > > >> >>> • the system MUST take efficiency into account >> >> Which system? and efficiency of? (Network, Implementation, Inference and Querying?) > > I suppose architectural efficiency. This is an engineering structure we are putting in place > not a logical/mathematical one, so yes. This seems more like a selection principle when confronted > with a number of possibilities. > >> >>> • the system MUST not introduce any incompatibility with LDP, especially for Write operations >> >> the "especially for.." is redundant. > > agree, this can be: > > • the system MUST not introduce any incompatibility with LDP > > But that's not that interesting. I think much more interesting is a use case that > ( I am not so keen on MUST and should .... ) > > • creation of account and WebID using LDP > • edit attributes using LDP - this is key differentiator with say OpenId Attribute Exchange > • restrict access to attributes of the user profile ( be able to do this with LDP ) > • use WebID to protect any LDP resource > > >> >>> • the Web Profile MUST define a default representation format >> >> can we define "the Web Profile" here, what is it, and how does it define a default for itself? > > I think he meant WebID Profile, and that is already defined in the spec. Otherwise one could > define it as the meaning that is associated with the URI. > > I think that the previous point gets us there, since LDP does define a default representation. > >> >>> • the system SHOULD considerer legacy WebIDs (or FOAF/SSL) whenever possible >> >> please define legacy WebIDs here and swap it to a MUST or remove completely. > > There seems to be a number of different things here, but I still think this would be very useful to > put together. At TPAC I had someone mention use cases for TV and Web. I think we'll get some more interesting ones as we fill up the wiki page. > > Henry > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Nathan > > > > > A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France! > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 13:40:31 UTC