Re: Matter of DN and what's possible

On 9 Jan 2012, at 23:15, 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?

Why would it not? You remember how you asked me to download 

 http://id.myopenlink.net/about/id/entity/http/twitter.com/kidehen 

which contained 1 MB of information with the webids of thousand of people? It's no longer functioning.

You say, that Jürgen is saying that when he puts a document URL in the SAN he is saying that, and I quote
" a document at an address holds my description"

Good so he is not saying which description, then right? So it could be any identity in there. If the meaning of the SAN is: 
a document that contains the description of the Subject then the following query won't do.

>> Are you saying that the query we should ask should not be
>> 
>> PREFIX :<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
>> PREFIX xsd:<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
>> ASK {
>>    ?webid :key [
>>       :modulus ?mod;
>>       :exponent ?exp;
>>    ] .
>> }
> 
> of course not!

Well you are saying that. Anyway. That is why putting things down clearly in logical language
helps to make progress.


>> 
>> as described here https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/index-respec.html#verifying-the-webid-claim
>> that is after the ?webid ?mod and ?exp have been replaced with the values from the certificate but rather
>> should be
>> 
>> SELECT ?webid
>> WHERE {
>>    ?webid :key [
>>       :modulus ?mod;
>>       :exponent ?exp;
>>    ] .
>> }
>> 
>> where only the ?mod and ?exp get replaced?
> 
> I don't see the queries being relevant to the critical issue at hand.

They are very useful, as they have clear semantics. So that we can communicate better.
They allow us to focus on something precisely. 


> 
> 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.
> 
> If you have a SAN with multiple HTTP scheme URIs where one functions as a Name and another functions as an Address, you put the burden of disambiguation on the WebID verifier implementor. Today, most won't be able to determine that a SAN has > 1 URIs in it where:
> 
> 1. a document URL (a kind of URI) holds the description of a subject

I was considering that above, but you seem intent on switching subjects towards an http-range-14 discussion. Why not consider the SPARQL query above. It leads to a lot of interesting cases.

> 2. an subject Name URI identifies the subject of the description in #1 .

Ok, that we have covered already in the spec.


> 
> All of the above is swept under the covers via the convenience of # style of HTTP URI based Names.

Well except 2. 1 I want to speak about. That was the second query above.


> 
> So what's wrong with mandating # based URI re. WebID you might be wondering? We'll for starters, look at the mess that lies in wait re. libraries and frameworks that don't implement HTTP properly i.e., they send the # over the wire. Just as experiments here have demonstrated repeatedly, and this is right here, the home of the WebID grokers!

You saw it took about 1 minute to fix these bugs. It's not a big deal. In fact most libraries do it right. It is just that some had not patched theirs yet. The Apache http client did do the right thing. We had an issue mostly because the RDFa verifier had a bug. that was fixed the same day.

> 
> 
> Jurgen isn't confused about being a document. He understands that he has an identifier that's described by a directed graph borne/carried by a descriptor (information) resource (a document type) accessible at an address.

yes. as it happens Jurgens graph would pass my verifier, even if he confuses himself with a document. It's not my verifier's current interest to know if Jurgen is confused or not.

> 
> There is not escaping the luxury tax that comes with HTTP URI based Names re. Linked Data. This is what I continue to try to shed light on.

The luxury tax!!! no less than that! 


> At this juncture I leave it to Jurgen. I am confident he'll get you there :-)

That is pretty pretentious you know. You assume you are right from the beginning. It's not surprising that a conversation with you is like spewing to a wall.

Henry

> 
> Kingsley
>> 
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 22:45:18 UTC