Cert Ontology and WebKeys (Re: WebID History - is also: Webid Editor/Author issue)

On 3 June 2013 08:58, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 1 Jun 2013, at 20:41, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/1/13 12:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, to be clear.  You just want to change his role in the current spec,
> and keep his name as author on the original and previous specs?
> >>
> >> To change someone's role due to inactivity seems allowable under the
> text, tho I suggest consulting with them privately first.
> >
> > An Editor denotes one thing.
> > An Author denotes another.
> >
> > Since we can't (all of a sudden) distinguish the two, how about
> introducing "Creators" to denote those that actually contributed to the
> creation of the idea in the first place?
> >
> > Henry's concern really boils down to the misconception of "Creator"
> that's arising from "Editor" and "Author". Basically if the perceived
> "Creator" (who is a spec "Author" and/or "Editor") is seen to publicly
> express flaws in his/her creation, the general assumption is that the
> criticized work is seriously flawed [1].
>
> yes, I definitively want to make sure everybody who has participated is
> duely recognised for their work.
> We should do this by extending the historical section a bit.
>
> >
> > Hopefully, this has brought some clarity to this matter en route to
> simple resolution and closure.
> >
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > 1.
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57481166-93/oauth-2.0-leader-resigns-says-standard-is-bad/-- what I think Henry is concerned about (also triggered my questions to
> Manu about his WebID criticisms)
>
> yes. Small is beautiful.
>
> I have not looked at Manu's work because I am overwhelemed with work
> myself, and I am sure he is too.


I appreciate that you have limited time, but I think it would be more
positive for the group, to make sure the current specs are maintained and
published than to go chasing authorship issues.


> But I think
> he is writing an ontology for keys and signatures. He seems to be putting
> a lot of work into that, and modulo
> the need for us to have a inverse functional relation from a WebID to a
> key ( and not documents to keys ), I'd be very happy
> if we could re-use his work. Perhaps there is space next to the cert
> ontology for manu's keys ontology,
> or perhaps it can just be merged into cert. And of course there Manu would
> be author and editor.
>

WebKeys has some significant advantages to the cert ontology in many ways,
as the cert ontology only does auth, but the webkeys ontology does auth /
signing / encryption / verification and lays the way for payments.

Cert only allows a subset of keys, such as RSA (indeed RSA is the only
implemented key in WebID+TLS), webkeys allows any key, including DSA,
Elliptic curve etc.

Webkeys allows any type of profile, including FOAF, schema.org, open graph
protocol etc. whereas cert is tied to FOAF.

Webkeys allows associating a key with an account, whereas cert only
associates a key with a FOAF agent.

These points have been brought up in the community group and you have each
argued against them, and made it clear that you were opposed.  That's why
manu did not join the xg, and has made an independent work.

That all said, done is done, and it would be good to see things working
together now.


>
> It seems that putting something like this into the W3C name space would be
> very useful.
>
> >
> > 2. http://twitter.com/kidehen/status/339748133468786688 -- How to
> resolve conflicts based on terminology and meaning.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>