Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

On 21 Apr 2011, at 19:51, Alexandre Passant wrote:

> Hi Jeff, all,
> 
> Agreed with all your statements, but in that case, imo, there should be more focus on the USP of WebID, and less on the technical side.
> *What* can WebID offer, and *why* that's needed, rather than *how* (i.e. expanding the section 2, and maybe shortening 3)

I think you mean the other way around. You'll find that section 3 is quite long in fact. Section 2 is only 1 page minus the graphics. Section 3 is one and a half pages of much denser text.

There is a big advantage of showing how WebID works, because its simplicity is so transparent then. Without that explanation what we say is just chatter. The point of our paper is to make clear that most of the work for browser identity is already done, and that there is very little needed for them to make a very big step. The less we ask the browser vendors to do, the more likely they are to do it. All the rest can be done on the server side, and they can benefit from anything that happens there, in fact they have a stake in having a bit of presence in this process, as we show a few of the things they can use from this to help improve the browser experience.

What benefits do you feel we have not properly written up here? 

> 
> m2c
> 
> Alex.
> 
> 
> On 21 Apr 2011, at 19:07, Jeff Sayre wrote:
> 
>> One of the issues we faced in writing this paper is the 5-page maximum. As
>> it stands, the document (if printed) is five-and-a-half pages right now.
>> Therefore, we have no room to expand.
>> 
>> The singular purpose of this paper is to pique the interest of the
>> committee that will choose the speakers. If we succeeded in doing that,
>> then we hope that we will be offered an opportunity to present a 20-minute
>> talk at the workshop. Assuming the WebID IG is offered such an
>> opportunity, we will cover certain details that, out of necessity, we had
>> to gloss over or simply leave out.
> 
>> 
>> So, when analyzing the paper, the question should be, Does the position
>> paper as it is currently written, present sufficient enticements to be
>> offered a presentation slot?
>> 
>> Of course, we do need to make sure that we appropriately convey the
>> advantages and power of WebID in our oral presentation. So any and all
>> input is useful and appreciated!
>> 
>> BTW Henry, last night I uploaded a corrected graphic for the certificate
>> picker screen. The most recent copy of our position paper on your site
>> does not have that change.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21 Apr 2011, at 17:40, Henry Story wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 21 Apr 2011, at 16:56, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Henry,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've added some comments to the google doc yesterday, do you plan to
>>>>> integrate them.
>>>> 
>>>> I was looking through the history of the google doc changes yesterday,
>>>> but I can't find them. I think I saw them before, but my browsers
>>>> currently don't show me anything in those diffs.
>>>> 
>>>>> I think we shall mention somewhere the ties between WebID and FOAF (or
>>>>> any machine readable data about the WebID owner)
>>>> 
>>>> I do mention foaf once there. We don't have any space left there now I
>>>> think.
>>>> 
>>>>> Since we're talking about identity, we shall mention that WebID allows
>>>>> (1) a user to give some of its information to an application (where
>>>>> s/he's authenticating) in a machine-readable form and
>>>>> (2) an application (where someone logs in) to deliver some data based
>>>>> on the identify and the attributes
>>>>> 
>>>>> Multiple advantages: fight spam, contextual information delivery,
>>>>> personalisation etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Fighting spam is there in section 4.
>>>> Does that cover what you were looking for?
>>> 
>>> Kind of, but I think there should be more emphasis on it (using the
>>> previous combination) as part of section 3.
>>> To me, the tie to a "machine readable profile" is a key advantage of WebID
>>> that should be streghten here
>>> 
>>> Alex.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> m2c
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alex.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 21 Apr 2011, at 12:51, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> New version with some changes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/04/21/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The old one is here
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/04/20/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is there a web diff tool?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2011, at 11:26, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 04/21/2011 10:41 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>>>> Harry, are videos allowed in a submission?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Btw. doing a good video is even more work that writing a good text
>>>>>>>> out, as it requires excellence in an even larger set of media voice,
>>>>>>>> music, film, writing.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Feel free to link to a video that you can show in your presentation.
>>>>>>> The video cannot replace a position paper, which requires text.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> HOWEVER, if you do get a video in with your paper, we might make a
>>>>>>> separate video part of the workshop homepage if enough people ping me
>>>>>>> with video requests. We've had about 3 others say this before. The
>>>>>>> idea would be people could watch the video before the workshop, to
>>>>>>> help start a conversation ASAP.  We want people at the workshop
>>>>>>> primed and ready to go.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2011, at 10:33, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Links in the addendum or references sections or via anchored text,
>>>>>>>>>> as per normal practice. If you have a live link, you negate the
>>>>>>>>>> constraints of digital rendition of paper :-)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since papers can be submitted in HTML, embedding a video is also an
>>>>>>>>> option to make the case of WebID.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 18:06:52 UTC