Re: self-signed

On 4/19/11 9:54 AM, peter williams wrote:
> Im just seeing filibuster, delay and a degree of specious argument, on this
> issue
>
> We discussed this topic in setting up the group - that we were about more
> than http URIs. We wanted to ensure we were not a linked data group (without
> denying the legitimacy of that movement). We wanted to ensure we did not
> fall into the political space that RDF typically falls into, whose feedback
> properties ensure the failure of adoption. We did want to be puritans, that
> is - "induced" to leave England (and even Holland), because their
> literalness in positions of power caused 50 years of constant war (to use a
> historical reference).
>
>
> What I want to see is any non http URI adoption, to ensure that
> multi-scheme'ness (per se) is being built into implementations.

Anyway, this is all done in ODS, has been so for a very long time now, 
relatively speaking re. age of WebID. In short, this was ready for SWAT0 
hoping that via other WebID implementations we could build bridges to 
the OStatus and WebFinger folks that also accepted SWAT0 as a great 
beachhead.

We (via ODS and Virtuoso in general) delivered our part of the deal 
i.e., code was written, tested, prioritized, delivered, and demonstrated.

> If I had a magic wand, Id have people agree to one that requires use of the
> "start SSL" technique, wherein such as an http tunnel is upgraded once it
> exists to an https tunnel. This forces the us to have considered the edge
> cases of SSL, material to this protocol.
Yes!

Edge case handling is basically what "deceptively simple" doctrine is 
really about. We know (I hope) than an engaged end-user is an "edge case 
tyrant". I say this because end-users are subject matter application 
domain experts, most of the time. None of that has anything to do with 
writing code. Being a programmer != subject matter application expert, 
and old reality that leads to the "inverted pyramid syndrome" that 
underlies all post customer acquisition implosions re. technology 
products. End-users aren't dumb (far from it) they are simply unengaged, 
you need "deceptively simple" deliver mechanisms to help them mitigate 
risk during technology evaluation.

Another example, the whole WWW, Identity, and Privacy matter really 
boils down to end-users knowing the true costs of not owning their own 
HTTP logs :-) The all inclusive SaaS application model starts a 
predictable death march once end-users understand the slight of hand 
that's lead them all to believe that they cannot start and stop their 
own HTTP server(s) :-)




Kingsley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 5:12 AM
> To: Kingsley Idehen
> Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: self-signed
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2011, at 13:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/11 3:36 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr 2011, at 01:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You're saying "WebID should support more than just http URIs"
>>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't be scheme specific in any shape or form.
>>> Okay, I have a practical problem with this as written: how do I implement
> a WebID relying party which doesn't restrict itself to certain schemes?
>> Relying party needs to treat WebID as a protocol comprised of:
>>
>> 1. URIs for Agent Identity (Names)
>> 2. Protocol for validating Agent Identity.
>>
>> A URI is scheme agnostic. The fact that HTTP can be used as Name/Access
> mechanism doesn't imply this capability is unique to HTTP. You can make
> other URIs resolve.
>
> Yes, but you still need to have that code which knows *how*.
>
> There is no double-standard in saying "I wish to implement a WebID server
> which won't confuse people by only supporting half of the schemes they
> expect. What do I need to support?", nor in providing the answers to that
> question.
>
>
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Data Analyst - Digital Public Space, Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland,
> 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA, Room 7066, BBC Television Centre, London
> W12 7RJ,
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key 0x663E2B4A
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
> on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
> 					
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 17:22:26 UTC