[foaf-protocols] WebID - mandated syntax or market solution? was WebID Incubator Charter draft

Nathan nathan at webr3.org
Sat Dec 18 23:08:22 CET 2010


Hi Peter,

WebID is web-oriented (hence the name) however many (all?) of those 
involved so far have viewed WebID as being pivotal to many different 
scenarios and software applications, the typical Browser being just one 
of those applications, for instance Joe has his mercurial repo's WebID 
enabled, Melvin has exposed several services such as file sharing, and I 
  give my all my web applications their own WebID for authentication and 
identification. Tht's just scratching the surface of what's possible 
with WebID, and the many scenarios people have already listed that they 
want to apply WebID to.

I think what Henry simply meant was, not to constrain WebID to the 
browsers, but rather that WebID support should be implemented by the 
browsers, natively, rather than by third party extension or some form of 
domain specific interface.

Best,

Nathan

peter williams wrote:
> I think the browser-centric "world view" is what is at issue here.
> 
> At least 50% of my web usage is RSS, using outlook as the RSS reader. The UI metaphors of the mosaic-era browser are just not part of my world view... My world view tends to be cert oriented (wot a surprise); needing certs on email, certs in HTML emails, certs on code downloaded from HTML emails, and certs in semweb-light RSS meandering to all have a consistent projection - so I can maintain control over my belief models. Remember, 50% of what you read on the web is just crap; much of it deliberate crap. But, that’s the world we live in, where everyone and his dog has an opinion on everything.
> 
> Webids have to be bigger than the browser; and not just in some backroom server-server protocol flow. Mainstream non-mosaic browser uses of webids have to be a first-class citizens here, are NOT operating under some historical All-American regime where you are human (but not emancipated), then emancipated (but not a citizen), then  a citizen (but you have to bow your head), ...
> 
> I recognize that this is web-blasphemy, to even challenge the mosaic legacy. OpenID is leading this challenge (as is cardspace), as its discarding the browser metaphor. It’s the mosaic-era browser model that made OpenID fail.
> 
> 
> -----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: Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:11 AM
> To: Jiří Procházka
> Cc: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID - mandated syntax or market solution? was WebID Incubator Charter draft
> 
> 
> On 18 Dec 2010, at 00:53, Jiří Procházka wrote:
> 
>> Do you agree the "WebID" name could be used, besides as the protocol 
>> name, for something like a certificate (think
>> http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon) which guarantees to an 
>> end user the software/service is usable in some way? (when it is not 
>> offline of course)
> 
> It won't happen quite like that. It will probably be integrated into the browsers themselves. See some of the issues here
> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=29784
> 
> 
>> Do you agree there are higher demands on reliability of protocols then 
>> anything else?
> 
> In some ways it is not sure that this is a protocol either, btw. 
> I don't exactly know what WebID is. The protocol is already defined, as TLS.  HTTP is a protcol and is already defined.
> Perhaps what we are defining is a proof procedure, in which case it is not surprising that we are at the level of logic.
> This is something the XG should investigate.
> 
>> Do you think if for example with DNS protocol while answering your 
>> query each participating nameserver could return "syntax not 
>> understood" error returning it to you as final answer would be good?
> 
> Putting a public key in the DNS is a very different issue. DNS does not have content negotiation.
> 
>> Please name some protocols which do this (syntax conneg - they are 
>> just defined as logic - the model, like you wish).
> 
> It's not because something is new that it cannot be done.
> 
> But anyway, there is one: the web. The Web allows you to return different representations for the same resource. The same resource can return jpeg, gif,... It was designed like that for precisely the reason of allowing flexibility and growth.
> 
> In any case all this is moot. We interoperable implementations in every programming language that work with at least 2 mime types. RDF/XML and RDFa, and some even with turtle. 
> 
> 
> 
> 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