Let's keep it friendly :) (Original: Cert Ontology and WebKeys)

Henry, I must say that I really don't like tone of your message to Melvin :(

I understand that sometimes we may feel irritated. Still in such situations I would strongly encourage all of us to:
1) save our reply as draft
2) take some time to come down, in most cases we don't really need to reply within minutes or even hours
3) read our message again once we feel in more positive mood and then decide if we really want to send it in such form or maybe would like to give it few edits thinking how other person/people may feel while reading it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

I believe that we come here together to collaborate on addressing certain challenges, let's keep our working environment friendly so we can not only succeed but also ENJOY THE PROCESS :)

☮

Excerpts from Henry Story's message of 2013-06-03 08:02:08 +0000:
> 
> On 3 Jun 2013, at 09:26, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 
> 
> And I would appreciate if after years following this work you started learning a just bit of semantic web basics, so 
> that we don't have to spend weeks pointing out to you obvious things such as to list a few from the recent past:
> 
>  -  our spec is not inconsistent with giving keys URI (as you argued recently in this thread)
>  - your attempt to argue for weeks that we should loosen the relation between webids and keys
>  - and more below
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> Very good. I knew Manu or someone else was going to do this, so there was no reason for us to waste too much time on it too.
> Small is beautiful, we can re-use the best work.
> 
> > 
> > Webkeys allows any type of profile, including FOAF, schema.org, open graph protocol etc. whereas cert is tied to FOA
> 
> We have told you for months now that this is nonsense, so please stop making a fool of yourself, by repeating
> it. Your point above reveals your complete lack of understanding of the semantic web. Kingsely Idehen and others have
> pointed out to you that { foaf:Agent owl:equivalentClass other:Agent } makes it easy to switch between different 
> ontologies. 
> 
> > Webkeys allows associating a key with an account, whereas cert only associates a key with a FOAF agent.
> 
> You mean WebKeys has a relation from a document to a key. Good. 
> WebID *needs* the relation from a WebID to a key, which we called cert:key .
> 
> There is no incompatibility here.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> yes, I argued that clearly for WebID we need the cert:key relation. I never argued that other relations could not
> be used ( though they would not express necessarily what we *NEED* )
> 
> >   That's why manu did not join the xg, and has made an independent work
> 
> Manu has his reasons for not joining the WebID XG as he had other needs. It is good that he has 
> done independent work too. There was already enough noise on this mailing list, without
> two communities that want to do different things stepping on each others toes.
> 
> > That all said, done is done, and it would be good to see things working together now.
> 
> The beauty about the semantic web is that we can work seperately from Manu and still have the results 
> be compatible. But one could help make things easier to understand for newbies like you by
> putting things into a namespace on the W3C and having it be blessed by going through 
> the W3C process. That seems to me something for a WG. 
> 
> > 
> > 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/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/

Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 09:04:00 UTC