W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > March 2014

Re: "Web Identity" -> "Web Credentials"

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:54:14 +1100
Message-Id: <F12A1D09-5272-459D-8875-83921F433FDA@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webpayments@w3.org" <public-webpayments@w3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

Sent from my iPad

> On 12 Mar 2014, at 11:22 pm, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 3/11/14 9:03 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2014 06:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> Persona is a living example of everything I am trying to warn
>>> against. It was broken at inception, for the same reasons: leaky
>>> abstraction and failure to accept what AWWW puts on a platter.
>> Could you please condense that email into an set of actionable items
>> this community could take? I'm having a hard time understanding what
>> you're asking us to do.
>> -- manu
> I am asking you to leverage the architecture of the world wide web (AWWW) such that the following are loosely coupled:
> 1. identity -- nebulous entity "You"
> 2. identifiers -- an HTTP URI that denotes "You"
> 3. identification -- a document about "You" at a location denoted by an HTTP URL
> 4. authentication -- a protocol used to verify the claims made in the document about "You"
> 5. trust -- the things that "You" can do or provide to others, based on "Your" identity being verifiable.
Trust something that's nebulous?
Or trust the http uri to describe the nebulous entity?
Or trust the identity document about the thing that cannot be defined? Or the provider of the URL? Or the provider of the authentication sequence that relies upon the former...?

Or that the language used in the description doesn't matter as much as the entry to those lay people, leading other industries, governments and the like...

Gets confusing to me...

> 1-5 exist without any document content specificity, they are what AWWW puts on a platter, its been so since the Web's inception 25 years ago . The syntax rules used to markup document content are distinct from the entity relation semantics they express.

I'd agree.  But show us the structure.  The tools are there, I honestly believe we need to work on the ontological methods. 

Google reference... 

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
> -- 
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen    
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 12:54:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:28 UTC