Re: default hashtags

On 12/3/11 9:49 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> I recognize, just like every other scheme, folks want a native authz 
>> and trust chaining logic to exist , and folks may "shudder" at the 
>> account linking interpretation. I dont mind folks having the formal 
>> authz that may need "more" correct naming that fits the logic 
>> assumptions (just like openid had its own mashup logics that made 
>> openid with with pingbacks,, etc), but also be aware of what folks 
>> do, on the ground with websso, regardless of what the standards 
>> architects design. After 10+ years of effort on websso in at least 4 
>> different version of the same protocol (and browserid essentially 
>> #5), 99% of adopting RP sites vote with their feet - and just account 
>> link.
> I don't follow all of that history up there, but on linking I can say 
> that the semantic web is designed around the concept of links. So it 
> is no accident that you can do account linking into pre-web systems 
> (e.g. LDAP), or across WebIDs, or even across protocols. So I am not 
> sure who is going to shudder. Not us for sure.
> Henry

Using a Link as a Name and then also using a Link as an Address doesn't 
mean a Name and an Address are equivalent, even if they share aesthetic 
similarity e.g., HTTP URIs for Names or Addresses.

Authentication could survive identifier infidelity, but Authorization 
won't. That said, semantic fidelity is where products might distinguish 
themselves in this realm, so WebID itself doesn't need to change bar 
some spec guidelines re. matters of semantic fidelity and infidelity 
when dealing with subject identifiers placed in x.509 SAN slots :-)

This matter will play out with much more clarity when there are more 
WebID apps performing Read-Write operations at Web scale that are 
subject to ACL rules.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 23:08:06 UTC