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

Re: Should WebIDs denote people or accounts?

From: Seth Russell <russell.seth@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 05:46:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CACfYUR5MYset1wntfeUm-+VpDU2XQQpc25OmUT16BfirC-qbQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
+1

Either "Actor" and "Persona" work for me.

So then an Actor (or alternatively a Persona) gets some name (WebId) and
has the authority to act some role for a natural legal entity.   That works
for me as long as there is *not* some rule built into the protocol that
specifies that the natural legal entity must be stated.  That should be an
option of the Account.  So that a Bank would probably insist that the
natural legal entity was named and authenticated.  Also a Corporation would
be a persona in that sense, acting on the authority of a *collection* of
the natural legal agents sitting on its board of directors.

I suppose it is kind of a philosophical point how serious we get about the
criteria "natural".  Me, i like it in there ... but who am i to say LOL.

seth

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


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Timothy Holborn
<timothy.holborn@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 21 May 2014, at 10:06 am, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It looks like we're making progress. In that light, I suggest we set the
> date for a formal call, to try to summarize this pretty long thread and
> come up with real actions/solutions and maybe things we can work on next.
>
> Should we try something this Friday (usual 4pm CET / 10am EST), or maybe
> next Friday?
>
> -- Andrei
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Given many services are currently "free" it is arguable, who is providing
>> the service to who. Are you the advertiser - or the customer...??
>>
>> In ontological syntax, it has been my concern that the lang. Focuses on
>> the needs of a service operator, rather than that of the user.  The
>> difference is that of a provider having "duty of care" over an accounts
>> data; as that data is purported to be the property of the actor who
>> established the account (meaning the end-user); vs. accounts facilitating
>> growth of a platform, where actors are more so orientated towards becoming
>> almost like "hive" members, in a honey farm.
>>
>> Perhaps poor explanation.  My view is that we shouldn't pick which side,
>> but provide the functionality for both.  Therefore persona is important to
>> me.  As somewhere on that cloud, I'll want a person document, and a bunch
>> of persona documents.
>>
>> My arguments for persona (in jan) are
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2014Jan/0007.html
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 21 May 2014, at 6:08 am, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <
>> henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 May 2014, at 21:57, 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?
>>
>>
>> yes, or since WebID is defined in terms of foaf:Agent not foaf:Person you
>> could have a subclass of foaf:Agent named foaf:Persona .
>>
>>
>> Persona = a role or realm of a natural legal entity.
>>
>>
>> The problem with this solution is that non-lawyers laugh (and often get
>> angry) at the idea of Corporations being People.
>>
>>
>> But I don't think they'd have problems with Corporations being Agents (
>> in the philosophical sense of "that which acts with intention" ),
>> or with the notions of Actors, which may be a better term. ( I wonder if
>> actor-network theory, which I know little of, would help here )
>>
>>
>> The term "actor" seems to be rather clear, in that it refers to a legal
>> entity.  Someone that has the capacity / authority to act.
>>
>>
>>
>>        -- Sandro
>>
>>
>>    Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 12:47:10 UTC

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