- From: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:13:55 +0100
- To: Eric Jahn <eric@alexandriaconsulting.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANiy74zWTcPehEmemzQQa1fHqMziZJTH=hD-2o_R_oeJ-YrZpg@mail.gmail.com>
I guess WebID can be any... Something used in WebID-TLS may need to be http(s). On Mon, 27 Jun 2022, 19:11 Eric Jahn, <eric@alexandriaconsulting.com> wrote: > Why does it have to be an HTTP IRI? Why not, just an IRI (any protocol)? > > Eric Jahn > CTO/Data Architect > Alexandria Consulting LLC > St. Petersburg, Florida > 727.537.9474 > alexandriaconsulting.com > WebID <https://alexandriaconsulting.com/files/eric_jahn.rdf#me> > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> > wrote: > >> On 6/27/22 10:52 AM, Pat McBennett wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I just wanted to first ask if anyone here knew of any existing >> discussions at all (either here in this mailing list (as I can't find >> anything directly relevant when I search this list for 'IRI'), or anywhere >> else public) on updating the current statement in the draft spec [1] (i.e., >> ""A WebID is an HTTP URI") to use the term IRI instead of URI? >> >> (Note: I'm very deliberately not even mentioning the term HTTP in that >> definition - as that is a completely separate discussion point (i.e., >> getting into DIDs and IPFS, etc.)) >> >> I don't pretend to know the history behind efforts to definitively define >> what an IRI is - but I understand that IETF 3987 [2] never actually became >> an official standard (or did it?). >> >> I understand that the whole area of clearly defining what we mean by URL, >> URI, or IRI is probably still a mess. This was brilliantly articulated back >> in 2016 in this blog entry [3] by the maintainer of cURL (Daniel Stenberg): >> "Not even curl follows any published spec very closely these days...There’s >> no unified URL standard and there’s no work in progress towards that. I >> don’t count WHATWG’s spec as a real effort either". >> >> The reason I ask this question at all is because the RDF 1.1 Concepts and >> Abstract Syntax makes it explicitly clear that all identifiers in RDF are >> IRIs (as defined by IETF 3987, so whether that is an official standard or >> not), and it's clear from section "3.2 IRIs" that the reason for RDF >> explicitly stating the use of IETF 3987 IRIs over URIs is: >> "IRIs are a generalization of URIs [RFC3986] that permits a wider range >> of Unicode characters." >> >> Therefore I interpret that as saying that RDF mandates IRIs so as to be >> as inclusive as possible of character sets to allow people from all around >> the world to use their native languages to mint identifiers. (Seems like >> quite a laudable intent to me!) >> >> So my question, simply re-stated, is: has anyone discussed the idea of >> mandating WebIDs be IRIs too, for the same reason - i.e., to explicitly be >> as inclusive as possible of global character sets? >> >> (Seems to me like WebID has *even more* reason to be explicitly inclusive >> of character sets for identifiers than RDF even, since WebIDs are expressly >> intended to identify people (as well as organizations, and IoT devices, and >> 'agents', etc.)) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Pat. >> >> 1 - >> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/#:~:text=a%20given%20Server.-,WebID,A%20WebID%20is%20a%20URI%20with%20an%20HTTP%20or%20HTTPS%20scheme,-which%20denotes%20an >> 2 - https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt >> 3 - https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/11/my-url-isnt-your-url/ >> >> *Pat McBennett*, Technical Architect >> >> Contact | patm@inrupt.com >> >> Connect | WebID <http://pmcb55.inrupt.net/profile/card#me>, GitHub >> <https://github.com/pmcb55> >> >> Explore | www.inrupt.com >> >> >> >> This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the >> addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged, confidential >> and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient of >> this e-mail (or the person responsible for delivering this document to the >> intended recipient), please do not disseminate, distribute, print or copy >> this e-mail, or any attachment thereto. If you have received this e-mail in >> error, please respond to the individual sending the message, and >> permanently delete the email. >> >> >> Hi Pat, >> >> Long story short, your point is valid. >> >> Challenge: >> >> Evolving the WebID spec is fundamentally difficult, IMHO. >> >> A WebID should be an HTTP IRI that denotes an Agent. >> >> How that becomes part of the spec is a completely different matter :( >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder & CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com >> Weblogs (Blogs): >> Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog >> Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog >> Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers >> >> Personal Weblogs (Blogs): >> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen >> Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ >> http://kidehen.blogspot.com >> >> Profile Pages: >> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/ >> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen >> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> Web Identities (WebID): >> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i >> : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this >> >>
Received on Monday, 27 June 2022 18:14:17 UTC