W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > October 2017

Re: Status-Check

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:54:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35VmxTQUZoKwUCGuVo5GoEHjUyT-WXoYTCq4Ysf7bquSdHYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
OK, I should have been more specific -- but I also think WebID suffers from
some conflation of terms.

In my mind WebID is the authentication protocol using client certficates.
Without it "WebID is URI" is pretty much useless -- or rather as useful as
a URI on its own.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Saturday, 21 October 2017 13:54:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:03 UTC