Re: Relationship between WebID and DID (documents)

On 11/30/23 4:02 AM, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> Good question Pierre-Antoine, let me add my personal opinion wearing 
> no hats but my own.
>
> 1) I think Christoph's argument, that in order for it to be linked 
> data, the protocol *has* to be https://, is a strong one, and 
> providing lip service to DID:WEB would suggest that we want to let go 
> of that restriction, and start allowing profile documents to live on 
> Bitcoin Ledger or on IPFS instead of on the WWW. If that is the case 
> then it would make sense to entertain this possibility not only for 
> profile documents but also for the rest of the data that we want to 
> store in a user-centric way. This then becomes almost a question for 
> the W3C itself - do we stick to WWW or broaden our scope to other 
> "data storage networks" (if that's the right word) such as 
> single-consensus ledgers and content-addressable DHTs etc. Or maybe 
> the W3C is tied to WWW but Solid is not? You see how a question like 
> this can quickly spin out of hand if you start picking it apart. :)

Hi Michel,

The "Web" in "WebID" is all about http(s). The simply shouldn't be 
tampered with.

Tamper with that, and we have an even bigger problem regarding moving 
this very basic spec forward.

The fundamental goal of a WebID is to name Agents unambiguously using 
HTTP based Hyperlinks. That's it. Most ironically, WebIDs are already 
being used in the manner described all over the Web, and that will be 
the case  with or without a spec.

Should we ever get beyond the basics of what a WebID actually is, we 
then have the issue of authentication protocols based on the 
aforementioned approach to naming agents. Ironically, that too is also 
happening out in the wild -- albeit with a focus on direct access to 
WebID Profile Doc content via URLs.

Blunt Truth:

The world is already using the following concepts without W3C endorsed 
specs:

1. WebID for unambiguous Agent naming

2. WebID Profile Documents for describing Agents named by a WebID -- 
they don't use FOAF, since the know its relevance has long vapourized, 
courtesy of Schema.org i.e., they use Schema.org terms instead

3. Authenticating credentials in WebID Profile Docs, using various 
protocols (e.g., OIDC + OAuth)


What could be a useful contribution, by way of a W3C specification is 
the following:

A spec that formalizes what's already in practice, rather than a spec 
rife with esoteric issues for which there will never be consensus.

As for DiDs, mangling that with WebID will not work.

-- 
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 Thursday, 30 November 2023 15:14:50 UTC