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

> 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.

+1

> Loosely speaking, In Foaf you have a Person, and you have a the super
class which is an Agent which can be a robot, human, group or corporation.
> The super class of Agent I think is a "Thing".
> "Agent" itself is not tied to foaf in the Web Identity spec, it seems to
be more or less the same thing you are saying.
> When you say the definition is too narrow, what type of things would be
an Identity and not an Agent?

i think the "verified credentials" under discussion should be fields of
information in the document describing an Agent, whether a Person,
Organization, or whatever.

my identification is available at http://dinosaur.is/#i. here's the info in
JSON-LD (
http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdinosaur.is%2F%23i&format=json).
this standard should allow me to add cryptographically verifiable
information to my existing identification document.

what am i missing?

cheers!
Michael


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  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>
> 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
>
>
>
>