[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

Thu Dec 16 21:15:45 CET 2010

On 12/16/10 2:33 PM, peter williams wrote:
>
> Folks have been focusing on the construct of a “webid **protocol**” . 
> I think that this was a refinement (and/or just a plain renaming) of 
> what we used to discuss as FOAF+SSL. If it’s a refinement, its one 
> that allowed use to specifically go above and beyond both FOAF and SSL 
> (as we came to know them, in https refs to FOAF docs). It includes 
> what started this whole process 2 years ago (how would openid be done, 
> if using only semweb techniques), but has grown up and beyond that to 
> address the web in all its forms, not only the data centric semweb.
>
> Now, I know what a protocol is, and I know what a secret protocol is. 
> I even know how to hide one in plain sight so there is “trust” (if one 
> believes trust is the presence of hidden kill switches, operated by 
> govts when needed), or “trust” (if one believes turst is the absence 
> of that which include any deception, specially parsed words, subverted 
> assumptions etc). So protocols are fun, because swap a protocol and 
> trust means 2 complementary things (and that’s the point…)
>
> I think I know what a webid is (a URI that dereferences to an 
> verifiable identity document).
>
> Now, its in that very definition that I tried to reference the notion 
> of protocol.  It’s all in the inserted adjective: “verifiable”. If I 
> used better American writing style, Id probably have to go with 
> something more explicit: a URI that dereferences to an identity 
> document using a verification protocol).
>
> This is the theory Im after. If this sense of protocol in ”webid 
> protocol” is not as intended, then what is it?
>
> With the admnission that we have LEFT the confines (but not the 
> discipline of RDF), I think folks are DENYING that such as the 
> following is essential to concept of “the” webid protocol:
>
> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/Carroll_etall-WWW2005.pdf
>
> Looking at the incubation proposal, I believe (from Stephan’s 
> terminology) that folks are asserting that such a trustworthiness 
> provider COULD BE one method of verification, but that’s as far as the 
> “protocol” relationship goes. Rather than say: Carrol et al fits in 
> the trust box of the semantic web model, we now say: Carrol et al is a 
> webid protocol instance; one of many.
>
> Now I like that (if its intended), as Its something the Kantara folks 
> could latch onto, here and today. It’s a webby form of what they are 
> already playing with from other constituencies (the US government work 
> on trying to add trust provider and trust frameworks to openid)
>

In a nutshell, this is the fundamental goal. Basically, reminding people 
that it's the "Web" that's actually the important part of "The Semantic 
Web" misnomer :-)

Kingsley
>
> *From:*Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen at openlinksw.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:34 AM
> *To:* peter williams
> *Cc:* foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> *Subject:* Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
>
> On 12/16/10 11:26 AM, peter williams wrote:
>
> You previous educated me (for one) well on the “intuitions” of linked 
> data, much as Henry educated me well on the core constructs of RDF, 
> FOAF, and semantic modeling in general, and Dan taught me lots about 
> the wider “point of” RDF, the enabler.
>
> Can you point to something that talks about semantics of protocols?
>
>
> This might help: http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/iss-1
>
> My key point is that WebID doesn't need any RDF syntax incursions. 
> None whatsoever.
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>
> Im very used to (formal) semantics of authentication protocols (e.g. 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.42.9593) . 
> But, Ill guess you have a more webby concept than all that rather 
> old-fashioned stuff.
>
> *From:*foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org 
> <mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org> 
> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Kingsley Idehen
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:52 AM
> *To:* foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org 
> <mailto:foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
>
> On 12/16/10 9:31 AM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2010 02:45 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>     On 12/15/10 5:03 PM, peter williams wrote:
>
>         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).
>
>       
>
>     I think you should broaden that and maybe say: it shouldn't be confined
>
>     to RDF (overtly or covertly).
>
>         WebIDs need to be big, like DNs and domain names are big.
>
>     Yes, Internet of Things scope.
>
>       
>
>     Kingsley
>
>   
> Suppose you want to resume the offshoot of "PEM certificate- was
> cert:public_key" discussion, where Henry proposed a way of making WebID
> independent on RDF.
> I have previously though this is a good idea, but then I realized a
> functional mistake and considering all options, I think using RDF with
> one required serialization is best. The discussion and my previous
> opinion can be traced from the following message:
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-October/003936.html
>
>
> You describe an implementer decision re. RDF. We can't make such 
> assertions re. Semantics of the Protocol.
>
> We must keep Syntax and Semantics distinct. Must also keep Spec and 
> Implementations distinct etc..
>
> Our own WebID implementations are RDF based, we use RDF/XML 
> extensively for some very sophisticated things, but none of this 
> justifies forcing it into WebID spec (overtly or covertly).
>
> I push-back on RDF for good reasons, in due course, may actions will 
> become much clearer re. efforts such as Linked Data and WebID.
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>   
> Best,
> Jiri
>   
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org  <mailto:foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org>
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>   
> Regards,
>   
> Kingsley Idehen
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>   
> Regards,
>   
> Kingsley Idehen
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>   
>   
>   
>   

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20101216/2e9c3d98/attachment-0001.htm 