Re: Matter of DN and what's possible

On 1/9/12 5:22 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2012, at 22:15, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 1/9/12 4:58 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> On 9 Jan 2012, at 22:49, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/9/12 4:44 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>> yes I see. So, you are saying you are a document. Why do you want to do that?
>>>> He is saying, a document at an address holds my description!
>>> Ah and what if that document contains the description of 10 people?
>> But why would it? How does that question not apply to a # style of HTTP URI?
> Because the behaviour is extremely well-defined with a #-style URI? That's (partly) why they exist…

You are wrong!

>
>> A # URI carries implicit de-reference and Name/Address disambiguation. Most miss it completely. WebID cannot be about a style of URI. It should just be about URIs.
> WebID itself doesn't care.

If it didn't care why do you make the statement about # URIs. Talk about 
URIs, even HTTP URIs, but not a style of HTTP URI. That's totally broken 
beyond repair.


> A verifier looks for the subject in the resource it gets back by dereferencing that URI. It matters _not one bit_ to the relying party whether it’s a #-URI or not.

Please make up your mind. You just stated that: ".. Because the 
behaviour is extremely well-defined with a #-style URI? That's (partly) 
why they exist…" .

So how do we handle other de-referencable URIs that are not so 
well-defined, to use your characterization?

>
> The fact is, however, that the vast majority of people don’t NEED to care if they're following recipes and patterns (and it's been emphasised at length that people will be…)

??
>
> M.
>


-- 

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