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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:22:39 -0500
Message-ID: <50ABF49F.9000802@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webid@w3.org
On 11/20/12 4:18 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> 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.

Okay, but you know these conversations aren't so linear :-)

Kingsley
>
>
> 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/
>


-- 

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






Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 21:23:01 UTC

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