Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

What I'd do to drive home a point to an mostly American audience (since that who one is pitching to, in that meeting) is apply stark "contrast" - to cut through the information overload.

Have browser use client certs with windows upn pointing to active directory node, with acls, and then access iis index.HTML. One shows how cert mapping from upn to nt account makes windows token, that may or may not have rights to read index.HTML's underlying file.

Have browser do the same with webid.

Show 1 thing the browser does poorly for the webid case. Choose the 1 because it highlights the sheer scaling power of webid for the web.

Present the problem case first. Highlight it's scaling flaw. Show it fixed in the bigger  scale case (allowing deployments to move from  1 million size ad to 1 billion size web). Make the case that browsers should fix 1  thing, enabled to now let webid scale.

For me, the 1 thing is: let servers better control when the cert picker is shown (and which certs are listed). This allows for better logout, and multi-identity management per person.

Don't waste the opportunity by educating or going on and on about how a change of bit bucket liberates the world from various evils, imputed or otherwise. That audience doesn't need education and will not act on the basis of paradigm shifts that involve major political realignments.



On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:04 AM, "Jeff Sayre" <jeff@sayremedia.com> wrote:

>> On 4/5/11 3:10 AM, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>> Here is the link for the Google Doc's Draft WebID Position Paper for W3C
>>> Workshop on Identity.
>>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> This resource should really be protected using WebID based ACLs. Got to
>> dogfood instinctively.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President&  CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> 
> 
> That would be nice! However, at yesterday's meeting, we agreed that using
> Google Docs would be the best idea. Document history is kept so if
> anything deleterious happens, we can revert to an earlier version.
> 
> The document can be protected, making it available to only select people
> to see and/or edit. This of course would make it a non-open document,
> which I think might go against the spirit of W3C working groups.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:32:11 UTC