- From: Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:43:54 +1000
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <58D697DE-6066-4E53-8370-CE01A98E9CD6@gmail.com>
On 10 Jun 2014, at 10:36 am, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. Ok. My mistake - i thought it was coupled. > > "WebIDs can be used to build a Web of trust using vocabularies such as FOAF [FOAF]" > Perhaps the documentation could include / notate other vocab used in connection to a WebID-TLS certificate; for example, http://xmlns.com/wot/0.1/ http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns (Which all appear to also use FOAF) I also found: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-vocab-data-cube-20140116/ > But the point is that webid is not coupled to FOAF. Cool. Cheers. > > >> >> >> 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 02:46:27 UTC