Re: Proof of Concept: Identity Credentials Login

On 06/16/2014 04:09 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 16 June 2014 17:50, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com A
> system that does everything WebID+TLS does *and* doesn't require 
> browser implementations (to become a popular success) is more
> loosely coupled and has less prejudice, IMO. That's the system we're
> supporting as an alternative to WebID+TLS. Concepts from WebID (not
> WebID+TLS) are included in this alternative, because they don't
> suffer from the same issues (tight-coupling w/browser UIs) that
> WebID+TLS does.
> 
> You seem to be betting your company on JSON LD vs Turtle, rather
> than allowing both.

I don't think anyone said that both aren't allowed. You MUST support
JSON-LD... you MAY also support TURTLE. It's the Web - you can content
negotiate.

We (Digital Bazaar) don't plan to support /both/ JSON-LD and TURTLE in
the beginning because the addition of TURTLE doesn't really add any
advantage to the system. If others start deploying successful commercial
systems that content negotiate for TURTLE, I'm sure we'd follow suit.
Adding features increases complexity. Adding features that don't provide
new capabilities seems like bad design.

> It's a strange bet in that given that you've already written
> canonicalization algorithms that change JSON into ntriples, which are
> a form of turtle, I didnt expect it would be a huge undertaking.

The canonicalization algorithms don't use N-Triples, they use N-Quads.
This highlights another reason we didn't want to support TURTLE: it
doesn't support graph labels (while JSON-LD does).

We did consider N-Triples and TURTLE for the JSON-LD graph
canonicalization algorithms and decided not to use either because
neither provided the flexibility and scalability necessary to do proper
digital signatures on graphs.

> So now we have a fractured identity space for the moment, the digital
> bazaar version and the WebID version.  It's a pity, but I guess
> that's just what happens when people take views.  It's a bet that 
> could work out, imho.

The fractured identity space consists of more than just those two
technology stacks. It also consists of Facebook Connect, OpenID Connect,
G+ login, OpenID 1.0, LTI, SAML, etc.

> However I've yet to see a profile that is 5 star linked data.  That
> imho is betting against awww, which is almost certain to be a losing
> bet.

Why do you think that the Identity Credentials spec proposes something
that isn't 5 star Linked Data?

> I'd definitely like to reuse parts of the technology here, but I'm 
> currently sceptical that this identity solution will scale.

What are the scalability issues?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/

Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 01:31:15 UTC