RE: Slash URIs and WebID Experiment

NOw answer the hard question I asked a long time ago (before folks with actual intelligence analyzed the issue). one cannot assume the self-signed or not-signed cert sender does it right - and that is the nature of the project (recall). (If it wasnt Id have had a windows SSL verifier up a long time ago.) So, what MUST the verifier do. As it stands, some reject, some dont. Henry told: its sort of ok-ish, jsut recognize folks may think you are a document. Having been a queen, I dont mind being anything at this point. If I can be a document and get access, I dont care. Im not here to be anything but a (stupid) user, or hacker, gaming the system. Now, there could be a rule that says: Verifiers shall insist http/s URIs have a particular syntax. The webid URI is rejected, if its not. FCNS code does not so reject; but others do for this syntactic reason alone, or for reasons derived from it consequences on then resolving the name. For a while, I believed FCNS was the abiter a conformance testing site. But, its not the case, it accepts at least 2 profile/certs that others reject.  
 > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:33:32 -0500
> From: kidehen@openlinksw.com
> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Slash URIs and WebID Experiment
> 
> On 1/10/12 6:27 PM, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
> > hi kingsley,
> >
> > i'm glad i could help, thanks for making it as clear as it can get.
> >
> > i have updated my profile and i feel much better as "any kind of resource" than as "information resource" :)
> >
> > for people who want to follow your steps below, i did backup my old slash-profile @ http://www.turnguard.com/mylifeasdocument.
> >
> > one note on my old profile and uriburner : you might have an old version cached.
> >
> >
> > so your point is simply,
> >
> > if we want webid to stick (hard) to linked data principles, we must have a possibility to put the difference between
> > name and address into the certificate. why? because linked data principles are not limited to 2-in-1-hash-uris
> > and a webid like http://www.turnguard.com/mylifeasdocument must be rejected because it can't be both (name and address)
> > without breaking said principles.
> >
> > right?
> 
> Amen!
> 
> Kingsley
> > wkr j
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kingsley Idehen"<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> > To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:35:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Slash URIs and WebID Experiment
> >
> > On 1/10/12 11:58 AM, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> i'm not sure if this webid [1] meets your test criteria. anyway here are the results.
> >>
> >> 1. http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html
> >>      accepted
> >> 2. https://webid.turnguard.com:8443/WebIDTestServer/
> >>      accepted
> >> 3. https://resourceme.bergnet.org
> >>      failed
> >>      3.1. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/earl/RelyingParty#profileGet =>   failed
> >>      and consequently all tests southwards failed.
> >> 4. http://webid.fcns.eu/
> >>      passed (when using https://auth.fcns.eu/auth/index.php?authreqissuer=http://webid.fcns.eu/index.php)
> >>      passed (when using https://foafssl.org/srv/idp?authreqissuer=http://webid.fcns.eu/index.php)
> >> 5. https://foafssl.org/test/WebId
> >>      passed
> >>
> >> cleared cache, cookies and active logins (in firefox) and retried
> >>
> >> 6. https://resourceme.bergnet.org
> >>      failed
> >>      6.1. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/earl/RelyingParty#profileAllKeysWellFormed =>   failed
> >>      and consequently all tests southwards failed.
> >>
> >> wkr j
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
> > Jurgen,
> >
> > For WebID, great i.e., you put it in SAN and it worked.
> >
> > For Linked Data no [1][2]!
> >
> > What you have proven is this: WebID doesn't need the full fidelity of
> > Linked Data. If it did, then your use of a slash URI that returns a 200
> > OK means Name/Address ambiguity, a Linked Data no-no. Ultimately, you
> > end up with problems associated with object equivalence fidelity (be it
> > by names or values). Using more conventional Linked Data parlance, via
> > this URI, you are confusing yourself with a document.
> >
> > Conclusion: your slash URI doesn't exhibit the same Linked Data
> > characteristics demonstrated by mine [3][4]. That's not a bad thing
> > since my fundamental point is that:
> >
> > 1.  my slash based HTTP URI is generated by my Linked Data platform.
> >
> > 2. use of my platform or others, shouldn't be the base requirement for
> > WebID if it seeks full Linked Data fidelity as a mandatory requirement
> > for HTTP URIs in a Certs. SAN.
> >
> > You are proving my point !
> >
> > SPARQL Query Proof:
> >
> > ## using old WebID query pattern since your graph is using old WebID
> > related relations still
> >
> > PREFIX :<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
> > PREFIX xsd:<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
> > SELECT * WHERE  {
> > ?identity cert:identity<http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard>  .
> > ?identity rsa:modulus ?m ;
> >            rsa:public_exponent ?e . }
> >
> > SPARQL Protocol URL Links:
> >
> > 1. http://uriburner.com/c/IBZM4R -- sparql query results
> > 2. http://uriburner.com/c/IBJUQG --  sparql query editor.
> >
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > 1. http://uriburner.com/c/IBJUQP -- URI debugger output (note: re.
> > Linked Data that should be a 200 OK)
> >
> > 2. http://uriburner.com/c/IBJUQS -- note how it shows you only have
> > descriptor (information) resource address
> >
> > 3. http://uriburner.com/c/IBZM45 -- notice the 303 (how HTTP message
> > exchange is used to facilitate indirection via redirection)
> >
> > 4. http://uriburner.com/c/IBYXSV -- note how the report concludes that I
> > have a generic Name distinct from a descriptor (information) resource
> > address.
> >
> > Thank you once again, for helping me showcase an inevitable problem for
> > those who want to start their WebID journey in commodity/consumer mode
> > leveraging "cut, paste, and place at an address" patterns i.e., the most
> > common Web technology exploitation pattern.
> >
> > Solutions:
> >
> > 1. Lower Linked Data fidelity requirements in WebID -- it becomes an
> > option, so 200 OK is fine if the SPARQL ASK still works
> > 2. Allow multiple HTTP URIs in SAN where functions are clear re. Name
> > and Address roles
> > 3. Consider another (optional) location for the descriptor (information)
> > resource address e.g. sIA.
> >
> > We need at least one of the above to address the problem introduced by
> > HTTP URIs. One that many just don't understand until bitten.
> >
> >
> > Kingsley
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Kingsley Idehen"<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> >> To: "WebID XG"<public-xg-webid@w3.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:30:32 PM
> >> Subject: Slash URIs and WebID Experiment
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> The URI:
> >> http://id.myopenlink.net/about/id/entity/http/twitter.com/kidehen , is
> >> now fine for testing purposes.
> >>
> >> I've verified successfully using:
> >>
> >> 1. http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html
> >> 2. https://webid.turnguard.com:8443/WebIDTestServer/
> >> 3. https://resourceme.bergnet.org
> >> 4. http://webid.fcns.eu/
> >> 5. https://foafssl.org/test/WebId .
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, it would be nice to see someone else produce a Cert. with a slash
> >> based HTTP URI in its SAN that passes through all of the above, or at
> >> least a majority of them.
> >>
> >> At this juncture, for experimentation you have the following HTTP URI
> >> based Names:
> >>
> >> 1. http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
> >> 2. http://id.myopenlink.net/about/id/entity/http/twitter.com/kidehen .
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>