- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 02:36:44 +0200
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLwhneGWnSx4+d2vRiokOYawwBNwP2fc9P14+yZcx1m3w@mail.gmail.com>
On 10 June 2014 01:49, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On 10 Jun 2014, at 2:26 am, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 9 June 2014 17:30, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Kingsley, >> >> thanks for the response. Yes. Current format of WebID (specifically) is >> simply FOAF. Calling it WebID when it means FOAF is well... FOAF. >> > > WebID is not coupled to FOAF. Is FOAF ever mentioned in the spec? > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/ > Sorry, my mistake. FOAF is indeed mentioned in the spec. But it is not coupled. "WebIDs can be used to build a Web of trust using vocabularies such as FOAF [FOAF <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/#bib-FOAF>]" But the point is that webid is not coupled to FOAF. > > > >> >> When it starts to be used for authentication problems emerge - >> authentication being a form of agreement that you knowingly access a >> private record or access control value; that is protected by some form of >> authentication. >> >> Assuming of course; the authentication mechanism isn't triggering off >> approvals to other peoples stuff, but rather effectively providing access >> to stuff on a legitimate (or as intended) basis... perhaps also, as >> understood by all involved parties too... >> >> >> >> On 9 June 2014 22:10, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> >>> On 6/9/14 3:56 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote: >>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy) < >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28philosophy%29> >>>> >>>> >>>> My rational around continuing to debate this; is that the whilst >>>> identity systems are fragmented on the web; they are fragmented by >>>> organisational influences, with increasingly lesser support for personal >>>> ones. >>>> >>>> My recent drafts about it: linked, http://webarts.mediaprophet. >>>> net/?p=72 (and http://webarts.mediaprophet.net/?p=68 ) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Simple answer: No. >>> >>> You can use FOAF terms to construct an Identity Card or Profile >>> Document. That's where its utility starts and stops. >>> >>> 1. Identity -- nebulous >>> 2. Identifiers -- denotation mechanism (e.g., HTTP URI) for a perceived >>> identity >>> 3. Identification -- identity card or profile document (you can use >>> terms from FOAF here) comprised of identity oriented claims >>> 4. authentication -- various protocols for verifying claims made in >>> identity cards and profile docs >>> 5. authorization -- various protocols for providing authenticated >>> identities with access to protected resources. >>> >>> >>> Having a WebID (HTTP URI) that denotes entity "You" is how you make a >>> name for yourself on an HTTP network like the Web :-) >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kingsley Idehen >>> Founder & CEO >>> OpenLink Software >>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >>> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen >>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 00:37:14 UTC