- From: Michael J. Williams <michael.williams@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:14:03 -0700
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAB4j6X9E2RKj-LyfuK+rqKf=5CdX9gjgvz-0+NUqSg_B+rykBA@mail.gmail.com>
actually, there's no reason "verified credentials" couldn't be applied to a Thing. maybe i want to cryptographically verify that a book in my hypothetical library is at the given location. in this case it really has nothing to do with identity (only in-so-far-as a linked-data document refers to and describes something) and everything to do with cryptographically verified properties in a linked-data document. cheers! Michael On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Michael J. Williams < michael.williams@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 23:14:31 UTC