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

On 3/12/14 8:54 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 12 Mar 2014, at 11:22 pm, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto: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?

Of course not.

> Or trust the http uri to describe the nebulous entity?

It denotes the otherwise nebulous entity.

> Or trust the identity document about the thing that cannot be defined?

Build trust based on the identity claims made in the identification 
document, using a protocol of your choice.

> Or the provider of the URL? Or the provider of the authentication 
> sequence that relies upon the former...?

You have claims in a document. The claims get verified. If the 
verification is to your likely, a modicum of trust is built.

>
> 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...
>
>  Semantics
> /noun/
>
> 1.
>     *1*.
>     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.
>

Links:

Links:

[1] http://twitter.com/kidehen/status/441699159230664704 -- tweet about 
an Identity Card for my G+ persona (that demonstrates my claims about 
what's possible)

[2] http://twitter.com/kidehen/status/441698167554572288 -- tweet about 
the use of the WebID+TLS protocol to authenticate the claims in the 
Identity card (note: the private parts of these identity claims reside 
on my personal computing device)

[3] http://bit.ly/1cG0VKe -- entity relation semantics coherence test 
and verification (leveraging Semantic Web of Linked Data delivered via 
HTML+Microdata based document content)

[4] http://bit.ly/1f3hh4c -- ditto via JSON-LD document

[5] http://bit.ly/1fKn8N0 -- ditto via Turtle document

[6] http://youid.openlinksw.com -- the iOS app (an Android version will 
soon be available too)  that I use to generate my public and private 
identity oriented claims .


-- 

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