Fwd: inames.org and informationcard.net - any feedback from the semweb?

Just noticed that I didn't cc the entire list...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paul Trevithick <ptrevithick@gmail.com>
> Date: July 23, 2010 2:38:08 PM EDT
> To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com>
> Subject: Re: inames.org and informationcard.net - any feedback from the semweb?
> i-names and information cards are two completely distinct things. Since Melvin already responded WRT i-names, I'll respond about i-cards and how they relate to linked data....
> An OASIS standard i-card as powered by an "active client" browser extension ends up HTTP(S) posting a security token (usually a SAML 1.1 or 2.0 token) to the "relying party" (e.g. a website you wish to either log into or convey some verified "claims" (attributes) about yourself to). While that has value and, thanks to end-to-end crypto can convey these claims high levels of assurance, it is still a one-way, static toss of some data. What some of us have been exploring is a variant, called a relationship card, wherein the value of the claim is a linked data URI. This provides a user-friendly, user-controlled, verifiable and distributed way to build a relationship between some RDF store on the one hand and some service or app that wishes to consume it (and possibly write back to it). 
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Leo Sauermann wrote:
>> Hi SemWeb,
>> Via http://thepowerofpull.com/, I stumbled upon
>> http://www.inames.org
>> and
>> http://www.informationcard.net
>> sounds like a great thing that is somehow related to the ideas of data
>> standardization in the semantic web.
>> If I read through www.informationcard.net, I see the layer cake of RDF
>> and Authentication/Authorization in front of my mental eye, making me
>> wanting to eath cake.
>> what is the feedback from the semantic web community?
>> best
>> Leobard

Received on Saturday, 31 July 2010 01:13:23 UTC