[foaf-protocols] WebID spec version http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/08/02/

Reto Bachmann-Gmür me at farewellutopia.com
Tue Aug 3 21:01:47 CEST 2010


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2010, at 14:58, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>
>> Hi Henry,
>>
>> i think the sparql query should go to a non-normative section or to the primer, but the spec should be explicit on the ontological terms (properties and datatypes) the verifying agent must understand.
>
> That all depends on what that other document looks like.
Sure, but it doesn't belong in the authoritative section of the spec.
Clearly Sparql isn't needed to implement a verifying agent, also it
doesn't seem an easy way to present a generic approach so that you
could say "implementation must do this or something yielding to the
same result", in fact having the sparql query for all the supported
datatypes (which should include all xsd-types) seems quite tedious.


I must say I don't really understand section 2.2, I would avoid using
forward references (apart from maybe in non-authoritative overviews).
Also:
- Used cached version: I think the cached version is an implementation
variant, Implementations should be free to use any trusted source
which include local cache
- In my earlier draft I specified that authentication shall not fail
before the verifying agent tried to dereference the WebId: I think
this provides a balance between leaving alternative verification paths
open while still satisfying expectations on what happens in the
process of verification (namely that a key added to the personal
profile will be accepted)
- I don't understand the part about the cryptographic challenge, as
far as I understood things WebId is about accepting a client
certificate and that existing protocols are used for actually using
this certificate for authenticated communication

>
> For the moment this is close enough to the core of the protocol, to be worth adding here.
>
> The reason we have so many SPARQL queries there is that we are switching to literal notation. If one had to choose the simplest one to keep would be the ASK query.
>
> But for that we would all have to agree that the future is literal. We can leave that open for the moment.
I think the cert-ontology should be kept minimal, and that defining
datatypes for expressing numbers is out of scope, so I think it should
be reduced to the identity property (I know about the cute unicode
hearts you can add to the hex-ecoded key, so the marketing department
might convince me we should mandate support for them, in another
ontology maybe?) .

Cheers,
reto


>
> Henry
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> reto
>> ----- Original message -----
>>> Thanks Stephane.
>>>
>>> I have now uploaded some new changes to the spec, incorporating a few of
>>> your recent changes too. I also added a number of details for the SPARQL
>>> query.
>>>
>>> These can be viewed online here
>>>
>>>        http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/08/02/index-respec.html
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>>
>>>     Henry
>>>
>>> On 3 Aug 2010, at 13:42, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should edit index-respec.html as it is said in the README file.
>>>> index-respec.html uses the respec.js script to format the document
>>>> nicely, generate the ToC etc. index.html is the static version
>>>> generated from it every now and then.
>>>>
>>>> Steph.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I noticed I edited the index.html, not the index-resp.html
>>>>> What is index.html? How does it relate to index-resp ?
>>>>>
>>>>> (I glanced at the doc,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
>>>>>
>>>>> but could not find an answer to that)
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Aug 2010, at 01:43, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just put some changes up on my version of the spec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://github.com/bblfish/webid-spec/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This can be viewed online here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/08/02/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The changes are mostly to section 2.2, which I rewrote and
>>>>>> reorganised to
>>>>> make it a bit clearer. This is not finished of course, and the
>>>>> formatting is not that good. I did not want to spend too much time
>>>>> on formatting before getting the wording right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we should for example refer to the rdf spec which defines what a
>>>>> graph is.   At this level we don't speak about representations at
>>>>> all. That will be done in the referred sections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>>>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>>>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>
>
>


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list