- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:35:34 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 9 Jan 2012, at 19:21, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 1/9/12 1:10 PM, Henry Story wrote: >> Well what does the SIA point to? A URN perhaps? > > Why? > It holds an Address. A URL. A URI functioning as a Data Source Name with one level of indirection as opposed to > 1 level of indirection (which is what you get with an HTTP URI based Name). > >> Otherwise how do you solve the problem of the "luxury of URIs"? > > By disambiguating Name and Address in the certificate. The SAN holds the Name. and sIA the Address. This is simply for situations where the subject of the cert. can't place a full fidelity Linked Data URI in SAN. Ok. So now you have two URLs where before we had one. That is why the previous talk about URIs being a luxury does not make sense. Your solution requires more of them. >> And if it is a URL then why is that not just the place of a WebID then? > > Because you will ultimately quibble about its complexity. Why, I have always supported multiple SANs in the certificate. No issue there. > Let's close here, as I need to get stuff implemented, and my team needs my attention. > > You'll see the end product, as per usual via our implementation. Ok. I suppose that is as much as we'll learn here. Henry Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 18:36:07 UTC