Re: telconf 07-11-2012 : what is webid

On 11/15/12 10:34 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, URIs always designate a method to access the 
>> resource and designate the specific resource to be accessed (i.e. 
>> http://example.com/card#me). I think we should proceed to using URIs 
>> instead of URLs, especially since we're going to push WebID adoption 
>> over the HTTP scheme (afaik from TPAC).
>
> I think it is clear that the only thing WebID Auth makes sense is for 
> the WebID to be a URL. Ie it really does not make much sense with URNs 
> which have no clear way of being dereferenced.
>
> On the other hand URLs are still too general. mailto urls are still 
> part of the URL spec. I think there is no need for us to be so general 
> as to have all URL types because we can tie all the other 
> authentication schemes together using Identity Interoperability
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Identity_Interoperability
>
> Restricting ourselves to http, https URLs does make for a clearer 
> spec, without
> creating interoperability issues. I can see that ftp and ftps would 
> also work, but
> we would certainly have a more testable system if we limited ourselves 
> at first.
>
> I think .onion and .galic urls can be deal with as proxy routing schemes.

You are making a poor case for compromising URI abstraction. It's a poor 
case.

URIs are the alpha and omega of the AWWW. End of story, everything else 
is a broken compromise.

-- 

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