W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Should WebIDs denote people or accounts?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:54:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJHwrnigGv+UU__4VdR3+6-HN6P1Y_Z4TNDy-HCea0TMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On 18 May 2014 19:16, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> On 05/18/2014 12:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/14 11:13 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>
>>> On May 18, 2014 11:01:38 AM EDT, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/17/14 8:05 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, very interesting.   I haven't found an opportunity to talk to
>>>>>
>>>> TimBL about this specifically, but it sounds like he's thinking in the
>>>> same direction.   In that email he's very clearly showing a WebID
>>>> denoting a persona, not a person.
>>>> Sandro,
>>>>
>>>> A WebID denoting an Agent isn't disjoint with the notion of personae.
>>>>
>>> I'm fairly sure it is, Kingsley.
>>>
>>> If my WebIDs all denote me, then you can't grant access to one without
>>> granting it to all, by RDF semantics.
>>>
>>
>> Why are you assuming that any of my profile documents have an owl:sameAs
>> relation, connection the identities denoted by the HTTP URI based
>> Identifiers? Likewise, if there's no relation facilitated by an IFP how do
>> you arrive at such, via semantics expressed in RDF based relations?
>>
>>
> That assumption is not required.
>
> By the RDF Semantics, if two RDF IRIs denote the same thing, then all RDF
> triples that are true using one are also true using the other.
>
> What you're talking about is whether a machine might be able to figure out
> that truth.
>
> If I have two different WebIDs that denote me, and you grant access to one
> of them, it's true a machine might not immediately figure out that that
> other one also denotes me and should be granted equal access.  But if it
> ever did, it would be correct in doing so.  And I'm betting, with machines
> getting access to more and more data all the time, and doing more and more
> reasoning with it, it would figure that out pretty soon.
>
> It sounds like you're proposing building an authorization infrastructure
> that relies on machines not doing exactly what we're trying to get them to
> do everywhere else.  Sounds a bit like trying to hold back a river with
> your hands.


Consider 3 scenarios:

1. If Sandro arrives, please let him in

2. If Sandro arrives, please let him in, he will be carrying his driving
license

3. If someone arrives with Sandro's driving license, please let them in

If I've understood correctly

(1) is how WebID commonly works today with authorization.

(2) is a restriction that could be added (eg let sando login with twitter)
but something we dont do right now

(3) is a what is being proposed, as being more common, online

I think we do all three of these already today

Why would (3) be preferred over (1)?


>
>
>
>>> To avoid that undesired fate, I think you need WebIDs to denote personas.
>>>
>>
>> No, a persona is derived from the claims that coalesce around an
>> identifier. A persona is a form of identification. A collection of RDF
>> claims give you a persona.
>>
>>     As I mentioned, those personas might be software agents, but they are
>>> clearly not people.
>>>
>>
>> WebIDs denote Agents. An Agent could be a Person, Organization, or
>> Machine (soft or hard). You can make identification oriented claims in a
>> Profile Document using RDF based on a WebID.
>>
>>
> The question is, what kind of triples are being written with WebIDs, and
> what happens when machines figure out all my WebIDs denote me? Are you
> really being careful with every triple you write using WebIDs to make sure
> it will still be exactly what you want to say when a reasoner adds more
> triples just like it using my other WebIDs?
>
> It sounds to me like you are not.   It sounds to me like you're just
> assuming that certain valid inferences will never be made.
>
>
>
>  We don't have a problem have a problem here at all.
>>
>>
> I'm suggesting that perhaps you haven't yet noticed the oncoming train,
> Inference.
>
>      -- Sandro
>
>
>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>>
>>>      - Sandro
>>>
>>>  When I demonstrate WebIDs across Facebook, LinkedIn Twitter, G+, and
>>>> many other social media spaces [2][3], I actually refer to the whole
>>>> things as being about a given persona.  None of that negates the fact
>>>> that a WebID denotes an Agent.
>>>>
>>>> We have to loosely couple:
>>>>
>>>> 1. identity
>>>> 2. identifiers
>>>> 3. identification
>>>> 4. identity verification (e.g., when authenticating identification)
>>>> 5. trust.
>>>>
>>>> Claims represented as RDF statements handle 1-5, naturally. We don't
>>>> have a problem here, really.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persona
>>>> [2] https://twitter.com/kidehen/status/419578364551499776
>>>> [3] https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/posts/1pmt4gWWae2
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2014 17:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:55 UTC