- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 09:12:28 +0000
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk>
- CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
Having a world-wide registry of urn:webid: usernames sounds error-prone and counter-productive, unless you say the usernames are organized by different authorities. For instance ORCID use a series of ISNI numbers, so urn:webid:0000-0001-9842-9718 would be equivalent to https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 -- other ISNI providers would have other ranges (see https://isni.org/page/linked-data/ ) Note that https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 is already a valid WebID and Web-based, I also declared the "WebID" page relation that adds a owl:sameAs against my personal FOAF. We already have a well-known authority for the Web based on DNS, and don't understand how a URN namespace for people would be beneficial if it doesn't come with a reservation & resolution mechanism. If there is to be such a registry then I am not sure why it should not be Web-based. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, The University of Manchester https://www.esciencelab.org.uk/ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 Please note that I may work flexibly – whilst it suits me to email now, I do not expect a response or action outside of your own working hours. ________________________________________ From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 14:27 To: Jonas Smedegaard Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-webid@w3.org Subject: Re: Should we complete the WebID spec? pá 3. 11. 2023 v 6:41 odesílatel Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk<mailto: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<mailto: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/ [dr.jones.dk]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dr.jones.dk/__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!B6ffNgck1Gg_X22QWxBG3AP3cN1cob5OpbDfe8jsUjjtEQGANrbtl_2E-2Kygol4KPRYLkhchLK4adFZoWWooiqBNIQWTru4YiY$> * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [ko-fi.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ko-fi.com/drjones__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!B6ffNgck1Gg_X22QWxBG3AP3cN1cob5OpbDfe8jsUjjtEQGANrbtl_2E-2Kygol4KPRYLkhchLK4adFZoWWooiqBNIQWxQlHS2Q$> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Received on Monday, 6 November 2023 09:12:41 UTC