Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

pá 3. 11. 2023 v 6:41 odesílatel Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> napsal:

> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2023-11-03 02:48:38)
> > pá 3. 11. 2023 v 1:09 odesílatel Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com
> >
> > napsal:
> >
> > >
> > > On 11/2/23 5:53 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > > > 2. urn scheme for webids:  urn:webid
> > >
> > > What's that, and why?
> > >
> > > A WebID has always been an HTTP based URI used to name an Agent.
> > >
> >
> > Yes indeed.  But not every authentication process gives a URI (sadly).
> > Some will give a string of characters that denote an Agent, which need to
> > be turned into a URI.
>
> Not every http URI works either for delivery, but we have survived
> without needing to define urn:http-that-actually-delivers-content
>
> What is the difference? Why the need for a guaranteed working HTTP URI
> here?
>

It's for pluggable auth systems.  Currently webid employs WebID-TLS.

But there are (in 2023) over 500 auth strategies on the web.

In order to make them work with a webid based system, you need a way to
turn a local username, into a global name.  Global names are called URNs.
So since I'm basing my system on http WebIDs already, it seemed logical to
have URNs for web identifiers too.  Whether I do this here, on github, as
part of a webid-lite / solid-lite I dont mind too much.  I normally prefer
to collaborate on things, if there is sufficient interest.


>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>  * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private