W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Principal term choice - Was: Re: Identity interoperability

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:18:31 +0100
Cc: public-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <FBD5B3AA-D4A6-41C1-B394-A30599819702@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
I removed the "Principal" from the graph on the  spec.

  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/identity-respec.html

Kingsley, when you have something to comment about the WebID-spec,
please put it in a thread on the spec, not in a thread on the
Identity Interoperability spec. You can see here which thread this
mail belongs to

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Nov/thread.html

It can save us a lot of time. I would have agreed with you right off the
bat that I don't think too much about the Principal being in the spec.


On 20 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 11/20/12 1:33 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> I agree that using the word Principal in the WebID spec is something that I am
>> ambivalent about. It is useful in the Interoperation document, because that is
>> where the confusions about Principals need to be resolved. Given that...
>> 
>> On 20 Nov 2012, at 17:45, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/20/12 10:50 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>> Notice that these definitions always speak of the "Principal resource".
>>>> Those are  2 words. You have the Principal which is the string, and the
>>>> principal resource which is the document  which we call the WebID Profile
>>>> in the case of WebID. Java allows public keys to be principals, and it
>>>> is not clear there what the resource is on the web for it.
>>> If the principal is a string,
>> If you read my message a bit further you'll have noticed that I moved on
>> to say that a principal is something that is constructed from a string.
>> So I do agree that it is not a string.
>> 
>>> and the "principal resource" a chunk of data
>>> then end product is simply this:
>>> a string that denotes the chunk of data. And by de-reference the string can used as a mechanism to get you to a representation of the data (its values).
>>> 
>>> When the string is used in a specific system e.g., URI abstraction,
>> I know what a URI is, I don't know what a URI abstraction is.
> 
> URI abstraction: how a string pattern incorporates naming and data access in a data access protocol agnostic manner. Schemes abstract naming and data access, for instance.
> 
> 
>> It is a good writing policy to remove words from your sentences
>> that don't contribute to the meaning of what you are saying.
>> It is only bad marketeers that do this.
>> 
>>> you end up with a denotation mechanism that *automagically* resolves to data.
>> I don't know about magic. Is that a new OpenLink product?
> 
> Is that called for?

Using terms clearly and less hand waving can save us a lot of time.
I'd like to be doing some coding, rather than answer misguided mails
on this mailing list.

> 
>>  If so this
>> is not the forum for doing sales pitches.
> 
> Indirection for the uninitiated.
> 
> Indirection is old to computing, we looped over this before. Re. Linked Data a hash URI has implicit indirection. A hashless URI has explicit indirection via 303 redirection.
> 
> You can ignore Name / Address ambiguity as much as you like, you can't wish it away.

I do not ignore indirection, nor naming issues. I give philosophy talks on these
issues. Please consider who you are speaking to before you write.

> 
>> 
>>> Example if the string is a URL and the system in question is the Web.
>>> 
>>> At then end of all of this we are going to be left with the following:
>>> 
>>> 1. Principal and Principal Resource -- a word and a phrase that will open up their own can of worms since most won't take the time to look at your interop document.
>> I do lean towards thinking that the word Principal does not have its place
>> in the WebID spec.
> 
> Good!
> 
> That's the fundamental reason for the push-back. You claim to seek simplicity and then you contradict the goals by your own actions.

This thread is about the Identity Interoperability. The confusion comes from not
being careful about where you post. See the thread:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Nov/thread.html


> 
>> 
>>> 2. Inference -- should reasoning be a MUST or SHOULD when implementing a WebID over TLS based verifier?
>> The WebID-TLS spec does not mention reasoning I think.
> 
> I know it shouldn't, but we will eventually reach this matter, in appropriate context. I'll meet up with you then when we get there, inevitably.
> 
>> 
>>> Object identity and its effects on equivalence by name or value is old subject matter that's easy to understand without any SPARQL examples when explaining the effects of owl:sameAs and inverseFunctionalProperty entity relationship semantics.
>> I was just using SPARQL in my mail as a way of linking functional and declarative thinking.
> 
> Yes, an as I said above, we'll meet at the reasoning bus (or train) stop, at the right time.
> 
>> 
>>> In an attempt to make things simple, for the inattentive, we are heading in the opposite direction, unfortunately.
>> My explanation was not intended to go into the spec. It was just me trying to develop
>> my ( our ) understanding of how the notion of Principal seems to work.
> 
> Yes, but I don't see how it accelerates the goal of completing the definitions of WebID, the WebID profile Document, and the WebID or TLS protocol, without kicking off threads like this.
> 
> I know what you are trying to achieve, much of which I don't have much disagreement (I did +1 the interop document since its really a vital endpoint illustration) but I also need you to be a little more flexible about how to get there. There are many problems to be averted with a modicum of flexibility. That's all I seek from you and others that are opting for "simply simple" as opposed to "deceptively simple".
> 
> 
> Kingsley
>> 
>>> Links:
>>> 
>>> 1. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html -- Object Identity .
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Kingsley Idehen	
>>> Founder & CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/


Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 21:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:45 UTC