W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

RE: changing WebIDs

From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:51:31 -0800
Message-ID: <SNT143-W30A9A49DB40E2E250B803292960@phx.gbl>
CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

Of all the points being made (which go the heart of the movements claims, and philosophy ), this one is the ost important. Folks fress things uyp in Leibnitz, but its all standard stuff from the billion dollar identity managament space on the web.



Is the answer correct, if one has done exactly what the spec says (and used ASK)?


I sense that folks dont want to say yes.


While is entirely fair that implementation folks can do triple walking (rather than using sparql ASK), my point as an engineer is that I need a standard of correctness. I dont even have a conformance test, thats creditable.


this is what I did when working with Jurgen's site. I defined standard correctness (as the judge will apply the anal rules). And, I happend to use the ASK (from the spec) as the standard being applied (for judging purpose).


we stand a change of being rediculous (in the standards communit) if no standard of correctness exists - at least for implementors doing conformance test (an exam, remember, not reality).


Im regularly in the position now that of my 15 use case that I test, almost all work at Bergi site (but various subsets work at kingsleys and then at Henrys site).  Its not becuase of technology differences or lack of support o=for this and that (I can elimiante those); its becuase they are applying QUITE different correctness rules (and not jus different validity logics)


SO, depending where you validate, you access to the access list is granted or denied.


Now, Im entirely familiary with validation duality (having worked in a startup that based its buiness model on projecting such). I used to sell shares/investements to folks with the line that VeriSign might say your cert is revoked, but we say its good (for you, under your criteria). After all, you have an encrypted email in your email box, entitled (bomb threat at 1pm in the parking lot, see inside encrypted msg for date). VeriSign and officila dom says "THOUGH SHALT NOT DECRYPT, its revoked!" Let them eat cake (before the bomb goes off). WE said, PERHAPS DECRYPT AND IGNORE THE CA, its being anal and lives are on the line.


It was an effecitive metaphor, as it defined: so who defined validity?


but thats not my problem, here at pre-operational status. my problem is correctness, for conformance purposes. I cannot tell when my code is broken, as it stands.








Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:54:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:54 UTC