W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:18:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4DAF4D9C.5070000@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 4/20/11 4:29 PM, peter williams wrote:
> So that's a political issue, and it comes down to leadership. I can only
> push so far....as at the end of the day this is/was a W3C group, beholden to
> the TBL vision of social change. Only the revolution, induced through a
> certain inter-subjective, socio-political process, is "true web". Yada Yada.
> I have no problem with the thrust of your suggestion (though a less abstract
> term might be warranted): recognizing that it implies that we endorse XRD
> (signed) too, as the alternative to the foaf card.

Yes, so "structured profile document" which is good enough for FOAF and 
XRD etc..

Then when posed (should it occur) to clarify what "structured profile 
document" means we have a hook into Data defined and constrained by a 
Schema. And from there we end up with Logic rather than any given syntax 

The above is about basically taking a journey that terminates at Trust 
Logic rather than FOAF or RDF (which are implementation details re. said 

> Personally, this is the position I would take when looking for "wider
> adoption" and when appealing to an "multi-tradition" audience like the
> browser folks. Always be agnostic overall, and somewhat deferential to
> others' "twists" on your own idea.

>   However, show QUITE some preference to
> one's own idea (e.g. foaf cards), but don't be "outright hostile" to the
> other group's largely equivalent idea (XRD, for webfinger, and for Google
> cloud etc). Assume, a meet in the middle will be required, to go "global".

Be brave enough to acknowledge the existence and virtues of others is a 
good technique for accentuating your personal preferences and beliefs. 
When you divert or undermine alternatives, the more experienced audience 
will sense nothing but negative things etc..

> I happily admitted PGP for years into the certs debate, showing its trust
> model was identical to a chain of self-signed X.509 certs linked by a cert
> store, whose entrance was guarded by a metric (even the PGP one, for all I
> cared). I didn't have to be anti-PGP to justify X.509 (I just had to enable
> the PGP rants against evil X.509 format, evil ASN.1, and evil CAs to be seen
> as rants, as uncompromising, and as ultimately rather false and posturing in
> the rhetoric; so inducing the movement to fall on its own sword).


> A billion
> PCs now have the ASN.A that was too hard (and un-American, for a while), the
> cert format that no one understand, and using entirely decentralized CAs
> based on trust anchors (managed by those evil Browser vendors..., and their
> even more evil audit partners)
> And this is where we tend to fail: we make out all the rest of the world is
> somehow evil..or "not webby", or in some way less than pure. Now, we cannot
> meet in the middle, or handle the legacy web (that was in vogue, in W3C,
> only a year or two, ago). We have to induce an entire revolution (TBL
> style). And, those are hard to make!

We must meet in the middle. Or should I say: the mercurial middle :-)


> AS I said at the top of the missive. It comes down to leadership skill. And,
> I ain't got it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:35 AM
> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity
> On 4/20/11 1:08 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> If  were choosing, Id be arguing around the inoffensive topic of the
>>> foaf card (that happens to bring along the semweb with it).
>> Why not structured profile document where foaf card in an example? To
>> many FOAF == RDF == Semweb. Thus, cleaner abstraction will provide
>> more protection against knee jerk reactions.
> Meant to say:
> Why not structured profile document where foaf card *is* an example?
> To many, FOAF == RDF == Semweb. Thus, cleaner abstraction will provide
> more protection against knee jerk reactions.



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 21:18:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:44 UTC