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

Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:21:41 +0200
Cc: jeff@sayremedia.com, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <10B649DA-D42D-48D6-BADF-2443359FFDC4@deri.org>
References: <1559bb7f8ba15e20e648de2f609bce7e.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <1507359E-4F66-49EA-B2A9-429FB9DE763D@bblfish.net> <4DAEE879.8080205@openlinksw.com> <989E50EB-B187-4D59-B047-4343BD358A43@deri.org> <DAC9B75B-77D0-4BBE-96EC-3BFC0A5E9935@bblfish.net> <4DAFF837.3020205@w3.org> <76D25FB9-E9C7-4AF4-8950-306A024CE0C9@bblfish.net> <2FA3E257-2682-45C3-A0E8-7F8326DBEC73@deri.org> <53347F84-2D6A-4FDB-9574-96D3CB47518C@bblfish.net> <EE9E001B-E2BC-4F2A-84C7-842F4A912109@deri.org> <2d1cf5f702b6478c332fcad463629dd8.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <9FE8CBE3-9025-494A-B356-5FCB5F791259@deri.org> <22b0972420a04f7ee033d3e92f462788.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <84350444-9F91-4903-B799-4E7F72E63D75@bblfish.net> <BANLkTinLLBTaARtae0eeyYJ+OYS+MGn7Rw@m ail.gmail.com> <SNT143-ds19C9ACB7112101459875E992940@phx.gbl> <4DB2FADB.6000409@openlinksw. com> <82caa774c884d2224a2c6c4e39eaa9e9.squirrel@webmail.sayremedia.com> <3898D462-D699-49B7-AC98-F360EAF5C59E@bblfish.net> <118a7e80c78c484851b3583e576cf508.squirrel@webmal.sayremedia.com> <9AE6E32B-F6B2-4399-B5A3-E1930ED81116@bblfish.net>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Return-Path: alexandre.passant@deri.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2011 07:21:43.0439 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D9419F0:01CC0319]


I think we should mention in the advantages how easy it is to create a WebID. I added a comment about it on the doc.
Overall, the paper should also mention that WebID is currently worked on in a W3C XG (listing organisations - that also gives more weight to the proposal) and should end with a proposal. E.g. WeID XG are happy to work closely with browser vendors and Webservices developers, providing opensource toolikts (they should be linked somewhere), etc.

A reference to the FSW XG would also be appropriate 


On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:33, Henry Story wrote:

> Agree on all below.
> The version I was editing is here, if it makes it easier to see the diffs:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YMY_UEIuZzZRvPem5cWg1DuC5FqN2DejOBYPX_51q7s/edit?hl=en&authkey=CI7q4cIC
> Henry
> On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:29, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 19:08, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>>>> Thus, WebID is not just for the Web.
>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 1:21 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>> Agree, but one should pause at the word "just" here. It makes me wonder:
>>>> what else do we have that is bigger? It's a bit like saying Bill Gates
>> is just
>>>> rich....
>> Removing 'just' from my sentence would not make any sense. The point is
>> that WebID has a practical role beyond the Web (big W). The Internet is
>> bigger than the Web platform. Non-webby protocols can harness the power of
>> WebID.
>>>> Anyway, when talking to browser vendors and builders, one should presume
>>>> that their
>>>> interest lies focused in the space just encompassed by this technology.
>>>> :-)
>> Of course. The workshop is targeting browser vendors. Therefore, the
>> browser-based Internet. As I've said several times before in this thread,
>> our position paper thus needs to be Web (big W) focused.
>> I assumed Kingsley was making a larger point and not referring
>> specifically to our position paper. That is the downside to threaded email
>> discussions that tend to snake around, periodically going off topic a bit.
>> It can sometimes be hard to know what topic is being discussed. :)
>> BTW, why have we stopped using Google Docs? I assumed that you were just
>> exporting an HTML version for people's reference and that we would
>> continue our edits in Google Docs. It is impossible for anyone else to
>> make corrections to the document in its present format.
>> I would say that at this stage, with the exception of a few edits and
>> proofreading corrections, we are beginning to nitpick with the paper's
>> details. Remember, *all* this paper needs to do is earn us a presentation
>> invite. It does not need to be perfect in all respects with regards to
>> describing WebID. We can go into more detail, be more precise, or paint a
>> bigger picture in our 20-minute talk.
>> Jeff
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 07:22:12 UTC

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