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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:16:19 -0400
Message-ID: <53224A53.5000400@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 3/13/14 6:51 PM, Michael J. Williams 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.

You are denoted by the WebID: <http://dinosaur.is/#i> 
<http://dinosaur.is/#i>

You are identified by the claims that comprise the document denoted by 
the HTTP URL: <http://dinosaur.is/> <http://dinosaur.is/#i>
<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?

1. Relations (comprehensible to both humans and machines) that associate 
<http://dinosaur.is/#i> <http://dinosaur.is/#i> and 
<http://dinosaur.is/> <http://dinosaur.is/#i>
2. If you preference in HTML some indication e.g., via <link/> relation 
in <head/> as to locations of documents that provide content reflecting 
the relation above.

Try this:
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com:8000/vapour?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdinosaur.is%2F%23i&acceptJsonLD=1&validateRDF=1&defaultResponse=dontmind&userAgent=vapour.sourceforge.net

This is a simple example of a test of relation comprehension based on 
entity relations represented in a variety of content formats.

My example sequence:


[1] 
<http://id.myopenlink.net/public_home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/YouID/IDcard_Google_140306_170653/index.html#.UyJJ8v0vGId> 
-- Identity Card URL

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

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

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

Kingsley
>
> cheers!
> Michael
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto: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 <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  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter Profile:https://twitter.com/kidehen
>     Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>     LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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 Friday, 14 March 2014 00:16:43 UTC

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