Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

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