Re: WebID equivalence

On 1/3/12 4:06 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> These matters (IMHO) have less to do with the WebID spec. They are field usage matters. You don't need to look far as they pop up in the Authorization realm.
>> >  
>> >  Look at this:
>> >  Subject: C=US, ST=Maryland, L=Pasadena, O=Brent Baccala,
>> >                  OU=FreeSoft,CN=www.freesoft.org/emailAddress=baccala@freesoft.org
>> >  
>> >  Where's the rule that states: we couldn't have a resource URL where you have:www.freesoft.org  and a mailto: URI that resolves as per hammer stack. In both cases they resolve to description oriented directed graphs. BTW -- the DN is just a compound key.
>> >  
>> >  Where's the rule that states that in the SAN we can have a composite key comprised of multiple URIs. Where the URIs in question are the Subjects of the description graphs exposed by Addresses in the DN?
> Not only is there no rule against it, but the spec says you can have multiple SANs.  So I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Can you provide a simple example?
>

I am saying, the Subject of the cert. as outlined above is basically 
represented by a compound key comprised of the elements above. The Use 
of URLs and Email Addresses are crystal clear re. meaning i.e., they are 
addresses. Thus, you have Address slots in place for accessing data.

Then in the SAN you have Names (not Addresses) and via Linked Data you 
can make these de-referencable names.

End product is you have two routes to the description graphs. You also 
have natural accommodation for asserting co-reference when a SAN has > 1 
URI base Names serving as WebIDs.

The ultimate example of this will come from what Peter is trying to do 
with SPARQL URLs once he discovers the power of CONSTRUCT queries. The 
SPARQL Construct URL can go in the CN. It will basically describe at 
least 1 URI in SAN with equivalence relations for the others.


What is an important point to consider re. WebID is what should be done 
when the CN contains URLs? What I describe above reduces some of the 
Linked Data nuance burden for verifiers since you could even have URNs 
in SAN and their description graph Addresses in the CN.  Thus, Names do 
not necessarily have to be de-referencable if the CN has an Address 
(pointer) to a description graph that describes at least one of the 
Names in SAN.

Note: Hammer Stack covers the issue re. Email Addresses.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 11:52:27 UTC