Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

so 4. 11. 2023 v 0:50 odesílatel Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> napsal:

> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2023-11-03 22:01:13)
> > pá 3. 11. 2023 v 21:03 odesílatel Kingsley Idehen <
> kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> > napsal:
> >
> > >
> > > On 11/3/23 1:36 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > >> I'd like to just say:
> > >>
> > >> urn:kidehen
> > >>
> > >> Problem solved.
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately this brakes the URN spec, because for some strange
> reason
> > >> it's not allowed, you have to subclass it:
> > >>
> > >> so it has to be:
> > >>
> > >> urn:<something>:kidehen
>
> Then call it urn:melvinid:kidehen
>

urn:melvinid:kidehen would be a bad choice because it's too specific to me


>
> Because...
>
> > > I am only making one fundamental point.
> > >
> > > A WebID is an HTTP based URI that names an Agent.  Attempting to change
> > > that doesn't help the cause in anyway.
>
> ...and calling it urn:webid:kidehen would introduce a new "webid" which
> is *not* "an HTTP based URI" but an URN based URI...
>

Just to be clear you are making a branding argument, and not a technical
argument.  I'm listening, and will react.  Althought I was around when did
the branding, and there's more nuances than I can explain in a quick main,
so I'll drop it for now.

There is another Web Identity branding argument going on that has perhaps
more relevance:

https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/427#issuecomment-1768348549

The full title of our spec is:

"Web Identity and Discovery"

Another group wants to create:

Web Identity Credential Working Group

Which is potentially a bigger clash as two working groups with a similar
titled thing are being proposed at the same time.

Possibly one will have to change their name, the new group used to be
"Federated Identity" and is now "Web Identity"

I think we should advocate for our name as we were first! :)

Branding is tricky!


>
> > Not attempting to change that.
>
> ...and you don't want to do change that current core principle of WebID.
>
> What you *might* want to do in you solid-lite implementation is to use
> some library that requires an urn as input, and *internally* in your
> code - i.e. *without* involving any mention in solid-lite spec - do a
> transformation of a WebID to a custom URN - e.g. s/^/urn:melvinid/
>
>
> Hope that helps clarify.
>
>
>  - 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