Re: Should WebIDs denote people or accounts?

hmmm ... interesting ...

I like it, just so long as Patty can assert she is a foaf:Human if the
Account agent allows ... otherwise she is has been stigmatized as a second
class citizen.  And a  corporation should *not* be able to assert they were
human without telling a lie.  If we are to keep this freedom on the web, me
thinks we have to somehow burn that into our ontology.

seth

the #toothlessfoodie <https://plus.google.com/s/%23toothlessfoodie>
Facebook: facebook.com/russell.seth
Blog: fastblogit.com/seth/
Talking products: www.speaktomecatalog.com


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

>  On 05/20/2014 03:45 PM, Seth Russell wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:
>
>> Alternative Name
>
>
>  Ok.  except a Persona name is not an "*Alternative* Name".   If i go on
> the web as Seth or I choose to go on the web as Patty, "Seth" is not a
> alternative name for "Patty".   Were that to become true in the linked data
> world, then i would have been outed by the CyberMonster :(
>
>
> FWIW, my sense is the problem manifests even without thinking about certs
> -- it's there as soon as the user says "that's me!" about a WebID, and
> systems understand that WebID to denote a human being, instead of a persona.
>
> Today my wild idea for the easiest fix would be to make two subclasses of
> foaf:Person, perhaps named foaf:Persona and foaf:Human.  Then the WebID can
> still denote a Person, and it's clear that might be a Persona or it might
> be a Human.
>
> It's a bit odd, but consider
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood .  (They use the term
> "natural person" where I say "human".)   Given this idea that the class
> Person and the class Human are not the same, maybe a more specific class is
> needed when talking about instances of Homo Sapiens.  And if we're going to
> do that change, we can take advantage of it to solve this whole WebID
> issue.    Convenient, eh?
>
> The problem with this solution is that non-lawyers laugh (and often get
> angry) at the idea of Corporations being People.
>
>        -- Sandro
>
>