[foaf-protocols] Fwd: Re: WebID breakthrough - pure Javascript+Flash implementation

Bruno Harbulot Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk
Fri Aug 13 17:11:09 CEST 2010


Hi,

You're absolutely right, RESTfulness matters for curl/Tabulator 
(essentially, non-browser user-agents). Does it matter to the general 
public using a browser for normal website usage? I'm not sure right now.

It's a general problem regarding REST and authentication. It seems that 
some REST advocates claim both that (a) using cookies (including for 
authentication) makes a system not RESTful and (b) the virtues of REST 
are proven by the success of the WWW.
Of course, that doesn't really work when you notice that most websites 
that require users to authenticate use forms nowadays.

I'd be interested in a "WWW-Authenticate: Form" scheme or similar, and 
someone else started a draft on a "WWW-Authenticate: Cookie" spec. It 
just doesn't seem to get much interest, as far as I'm aware.

I know it may sound a bit disappointing from a technical perspective, 
but REST isn't something that most users care about. Most people just 
want something that works when they're using a browser, and tend to be 
satisfied with the Facebook/Google/... account experience.

I'm aware of the benefits of REST and RESTful authentication because 
I've been writing services targeted at both browsers and automated 
clients, but I reckon this still is a niche market.

Again, if we don't make use of the keys with the WebID, the JS+Flash 
interface will look just like the existing OpenID choices at the moment 
(and that's not necessarily a bad thing). From there, I think it's going 
to be hard to convince most users to use a WebID rather than an OpenID 
(or even instead of their Google account, which most people might not 
even know is an OpenID provider).

Sure, Linked Data goes further than the browser experience, but there 
are still a number of issues to address. I think it depends on what the 
target audiences are.

Best wishes,

Bruno.


On 12/08/2010 21:23, Joe Presbrey wrote:
> I am very surprised to hear this argument.
>
> AFAIK, the main technical problem with OpenID as an authentication
> protocol in a Linked Data context is that it is not RESTful!  Using
> Linked Data in meaningful ways goes well beyond the user in a Web
> Browser experience.
>
> Linked Data w/ OpenID breaks HTTP completely when
> [curl|rapper|Tabulator|insert data browser here] asks for RDF and it
> redirects me to an authorization page at my IdP.  On the other hand,
> WebID prompted SSL-authentication leading to correct HTTP status codes
> indicate to any HTTP client written in our lifetime exactly what to
> do.
>
> --
> Joe Presbrey
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Bruno Harbulot
> <Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk>  wrote:
>> My main point still is that, if we don't make suitable use of the public
>> key but instead move away from using certificates, there's little point
>> in developing WebID, we might as well try to extend OpenID with some
>> semantic-web extensions.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Bruno.


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list