[foaf-protocols] WebID talk at W3C
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Tue Aug 24 18:45:18 CEST 2010
On 24 August 2010 18:16, Seth Russell <russell.seth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet <
> scorlosquet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com>wrote:
>>> The slides that I've prepared for the presentation are here:
>> from http://payswarm.com/slides/webid/#(5)<http://payswarm.com/slides/webid/#%285%29>
>> > "OpenID isn't quite decentralized - requires the identity provider to be
>> available at all times"
>> This should be reworded. WebID suffers from the same shortcoming: if your
>> WebID URI does not dereference or if your WebID Profile document is down,
>> you cannot log in. That's something the multiple SAN URIs could solve:
> Can't a web site use the WebID to allow a client to "log in" whether the
> "Profile document" is online or not? Sure the site cannot verify the
> document, but that verification need not be required for each log in. Have
> we required the verification on each login? Why would we do that? Why
> would we purposefully make our WebID less reliable? What am i missing here?
The first time a Verification Agent checks the certificate / FOAF it will
need to dereference the FOAF.
In practice, subsequent attempts may take advantage of web architecture /
caching, or use, for example, a cookie for convenience.
> Seth Russell
> Podcasting: tagtalking.net
> Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
> Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
> Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
> Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
> Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols