Re: Status-Check

in its simplest form a WebID is a URI.



On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:45 Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
wrote:

> Why would WebID need the OpenID stuff?
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Timothy Holborn <
> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:30 Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Oct 2017, at 14:35, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Henry / WebID,
>>>
>>> What's going on with WebID?
>>>
>>>
>>> I am trying to write a PhD thesis on this area in order to explain to
>>> the security community
>>> its' properties in the mathematical language they understand.
>>>
>>
>> good for you.  I'm working on a ISOC-SIG to progress things that don't
>> fit into W3.  I'm hoping this will result in positive steps forward
>> overall...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The WebID community is a nice group, but convincing ourselves that this
>>> is great is not
>>> much use to convince the wider world.
>>>
>>
>> I've just found that the Digital-Signatures work has moved around a bit,
>> and i'm not 100% on board with the DID work (whilst admitting, i haven't
>> fully investigated it).  it was my view, what is now many years ago, that
>> the ability to build-out signed documents was an important constituent to
>> 'identity' and that aptly, the requirement at the time was to change the
>> terms as to ensure the scope was 'verifiable claims'; that this work is,
>> well.  as done as i think it needs to be; and the other constituent of the
>> 'identity' related stuff (as required for RWW related works) now needs a
>> bit of rejuvenation seemingly...?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I see the OIDC-WebID-Spec[1] but it doesn't seem to have made it into
>>> the WebID group[2] info, et.al.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a number of things to look at. But I'd rather have people in
>>> the security space confined of this,
>>> than various hackers more or less aware of security issues.
>>>
>>
>> k. important point.
>>
>> When you're talking about security experts; is this requirement important
>> for updating the WebID docs to include the OIDC methods?
>>
>> my little map in my head; left me thinking that when it comes to the
>> underlying ID bit - that's a WebID.   After the WebID it gets more
>> complicated; and that some of those WebIDs probably should describe a
>> machine (rather than its user, which is a different WebID)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I note also; the ability to produce (and link) verifiable claims or
>>> 'credentials' I felt, some-time ago now, was quite an important extension
>>> to WebID theorem; yet the WebID Spec still makes no reference of JSON-LD
>>> which i still think is not ideal.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's something one could remedy quite easily....  Will see as I give
>>> in my first year report back. But the problem
>>> WebID is having is not because the spec does not mention json-ld.
>>>
>>
>> Understand.   If i'm successful in getting the ISOC method up and running
>> (noting also, there's a related field of endeavour in IEEE[3] - i'm hoping
>> for a good community) ; then the theory is we'll be able to deal with 'the
>> social implications' a bit more broadly, and this in-turn should yield
>> better means to get stuck into any tech. requirements needed thereafter, as
>> well as better illustrating the need for RWW like deployment methods (and
>> in-turn, forming a comprehensive global / regional framework via Local ISOC
>> chapters to help educate local stakeholders, such as GOV, how, why, methods
>> and benefits of doing so).
>>
>> It's been a fair bit of effort, and its not even started yet.  Yet i
>> think the WebID stuff is important, and it seems to the docs are all a bit
>> out of date.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim.H.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/solid/webid-oidc-spec
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/community/WebID/
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim.H.
>> [3] https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/iccom/IC17-002-01_Di.pdf
>>
>
>