[foaf-protocols] WebID spec: Subject Alternative Name extension

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 17 July 2010 06:12, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 16 Jul 2010, at 23:28, Nathan wrote:
>
> > Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16/07/2010 22:46, Seth Russell wrote:
> >>
> >>>    Again, the whole point of the WebID is to enable linked data and
> >>>    what it entails. In particular, a simple example is, as you suggest,
> >>>    getting the user's e-mail address. foaf:mbox does just that from the
> >>>    WebID profile document.
> >>>    Putting information in the certificate is rather limited (and
> >>>    anyway, no one asserts that data, since we're not using a PKI).
> >>>    Instead, getting the information from the WebID profile document
> >>>    (aka the FOAF file), you'll be able to populate more things
> >>>    automatically in the merchant sites, not only the e-mail address but
> >>>    perhaps the full name, possibly address, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thing is, if the whole wrap is going to be it's there in the X.509
> >>> specification, so use it if you want, but what you should do is get the
> >>> email from a FOAF file, (which err, you probably won't find it there),
> >>> then, no, we don't get the benefit of instant motivation to
> >>> implement.
> >>
> >> That is an interesting question indeed.
> >> We haven't talked about FOAF in the specification, but a lot of the
> >> interesting data will be using the FOAF vocabulary.
> >>
> >> There are two options:
> >> (1) We stick to the authentication part in this spec (so we only talk
> >> about the cert ontology).
> >> (2) In addition to 1, we build in the dependence on FOAF.
> >>
> >> I'm more in favour of (1).
> >
> > I'm totally in favour of (1)
> >
> >> However, mentioning FOAF is indeed important.
> >
> > sounds more like 'primer' domain or accompanying material to me
> >
> > fwiw & imho of course :)
>
> The idea of a primer sounds very good. Simplifies things a lot.
>

+1 also to primer

I think one key message to get across is how to do web scale federated
single signon?

Authenticating the WebID is just one step, but now we need to associate the
webid with new remote accounts (new and existing) using sameAs, i guess a
two way link is idea;.

Care should be taken to make the sameAs triple unique per account, or you
may end up signing on to more than one account at the same time, which is
not ideal.


>
> Though Nothing wrong with mentio
>
>
> Henry
>
> >
> > Best,
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100718/6abea386/attachment-0001.htm