[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

peter williams home_pw at msn.com
Wed Dec 15 23:03:01 CET 2010


I like this proposal.

What I don't want is the scope to be limited to the linked data movement (or
its various axioms about the world should be).

WebIDs need to be big, like DNs and domain names are big.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan [mailto:nathan at webr3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:32 AM
To: peter williams
Cc: 'Henry Story'; foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

FWIW, I agree with peter, as outlined a few months ago [1], I strongly feel
there needs to be an abstract or bare bones protocol, which then has
mappings published to well defined technologies.

[1]
http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-July/002779.html


peter williams wrote:
> The scope seems very narrow compared to the scope of the provenance
example,
> given here recently.
> 
> I could give 10 examples of this scoping tied to the wording. But, until
> folks agree that the scope needs to be generalized, I don't see the point
> arguing with the wording. Before anyone gets defense, there is nothing
wrong
> with having an engineering scope.
> 
> For example, wording ties the webid incubation 
> - to only protocol designs (which is no longer even tied exclusively to
FOAF
> cards), 
> - to social networks (and not other web applications), 
> - to classical https (and not connectionless SSL used in TTLS, or DTLS), 
> - to only (IETF-sponsored) cipher suites defining commodity crypto
> - to identified browser users (and not group or server entities, say,
> similarly named).
> 
> Overall, it comes across as an engineering profile of client certs for
> https, rather than discovery aimed at characterizing the nature of the
> research program.
> 
> If I was to enter the forum and propose that the supplicant in an PC or
> phone OS on binding to a switch or wifi access point might use TTLS with
> client certs WITH webids and the access control decision should leverage a
> ping on the semantic web, it would not be in scope - despite being a
> protocol design. Its not social networking, its not https, its assumes
> browsers leverage SSL sockets in an OS/stack vs a code library in a
> universal browser application, 
> 
> I could go to cisco engineers I know and get them interested in semantic
> web, but only as a tool to be applied to the above. I could go to another
> group working on multicast-powered group keying for SSL in custom https
> clients, but their focus in making plugins modules for http and ssl
> libraries, rather than redefining typical browser https experienced used
in
> PCs and phones used for twittering.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Henry
> Story
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:29 AM
> To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: [foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
> 
> Before we send this off, can people please send comments to the wording of
> the draft.
> 
> http://lab.linkeddata.deri.ie/2010/WebID-XG/webid-charter-draft.html
> 
> I recently added IIW and Liberty, xantara as external groups, but am not
> sure the description of their activities are good.
> 
> 	Any feedback helpful,
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	
> 	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
> 
> 




More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list