Re: neither FCNS nor FOAFSSL can read a new foaf card (hosted in Azure). RDFa validators at W3C and RDFachecker say its fine...

On 12/27/11 5:14 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
> Ive reached screaming point, despite it sort of working: See
> It only works in what I assume are "advanced validators" - those able to deal with proxying. Which is not to say that the advanced validators can use my own data source (and validated against it). But, assuming Kingsleys system SOMEHOW cleans up my data source (and turns it into a linked data set), putting the proxy URI in the SAN alongside the URI does make something work, in some places, sometimes.

Some things to treat as key rules:

1. only put URIs in SAN that are Object/Entity Names (> 1 level of 
indirection re. data access i.e., rather than 
Object/Entity descriptor resource  Addresses ( 1 level of indirection 
re. data access i.e.,

2. the resource to which the Name resolves must be comprised of an 
eav/spo directed graph (serialization formats may vary) in which 
attribute=value or predicate=object pairs coalesce around the URI based 
Object/Entity Name re., Public Key relations.

What URIBurner (a Virtuoso instance with its Linked Data Deployment 
middlware module enabled) does is generate a proxy/wrapper Linked Data 
URI because of ambiguity its detects when dealing the the URIs used in 
your Certs. SAN.

In my earlier response I forgot to tell you to also place the #me URI in 
your Certs. SAN. Thus you would have had the following:

-- descriptor resource address
-- object/entity name that resolves to its descriptor via de-reference 
(an act of >1 level of indirection) .

If you want to have >1 URIs in SAN, ensure you have two Object/Entity 
Names rather than an Object/Entity Name and a Descriptor Address.

Your exercise is demonstrating why Name/Address disambiguation is 
important when HTTP URIs are used as Object/Entity Names. You aren't the 
first to scream, but you might be one of the last as this exercise may 
ultimately reveal a new way of explaining what's dogged many for years 
in this realm.

> I think I learned something, about where webid will get too. ANd, now, I can at least SEE/CONTEMPLATE the full power of the linke data model (as it relates to just webid, never mind the rest). Its rather BETTER than the X.500 subobject/instancing model, particularly if such as Henrys validator can cast its query to suit the linked data view (of my data source).
> What this means for security I dont know; as the traditional notions of authority have gone out of the window.

Out of the old Window into a new one where logic prevails :-)




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

Received on Wednesday, 28 December 2011 02:35:28 UTC