[foaf-dev] [foaf-protocols] FOAF ping pong, with signed endorsements
henry.story at bblfish.net
Sun May 30 22:14:38 CEST 2010
On 30 May 2010, at 19:22, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote
>> 2010/5/29 Peter Williams <pwilliams at rapattoni.com>
>>> In many ways, openid is having an existential crisis
> Yes, the openid-specs list has been pretty interesting lately!
>>> One natural way to model the ping record would be to use the wot
>>> vocabulary and “endorse” the act of “having used” a “pinging” web service.
>> The WOT vocab is a bit old, and needs a bit of modernization / rennovation,
>> I believe.
> Yes, very much so. A lot has happened since 2002 :) And it always was
> a very rough cut at the problem space. Basically we just wanted to get
> real world developers some experience with working with digitally
> signed RDF documents. Remember that back around 2002/3 (eg. see
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-rdfprov.html ) most
> RDF storage implementations were simple naive triple stores. The idea
> of keeping track of provenance was there in the community but only
> when SPARQL's named graph support came along a few years later did it
> really go mainstream.
yes, it was very useful for me.
What is a bit awkward though is that in the end you don't really need any
of the PGP/GPG encoding stuff. The core mathematical info behind all X.509 and
PGP and any other system are just the notion of public and private keys.
So why not rather help finish the cert ontology? And find mappings to it?
There are a lot of things that can be developed here. And we already have some
momentum with foaf+ssl on the foaf-protocols mailing list.
> So, if the wot: namespace was open for business again, how should it
> look? (and btw in terms of namespace management I think there's a case
> for simply freezing wot: and putting the most useful and modernised
> bits directly into foaf:, as it's once less thing to manage, and one
> less namespace URI to clutter up RDFa data with).
I wonder about this argument. The RDFa 1.1 group as I see it is going to add the
ability to declare namespaces externally with @profile.
So I am not sure that it is really needed to complicate vocabulary management, by taking
on bigger and bigger tasks. and mixing them together in one space.
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-dev