[foaf-protocols] what if

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Sun Jul 18 20:00:34 CEST 2010


Nathan wrote:
> Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>   
>> the public key is an attribute of an resource
>>     
>
> yes, not the representation
>
>   
>> described by the document in the entity body, this resource is usually the primary
>> topic of the requested resource.
>>     
>
> again, resource, not representation
>
>   
>> We have established ontologies to link such an agent to a public key.
>>     
>
> if you take my webid, it's still my webid, and all the ontologies still 
> work the same with no change, this simply sticks the authentication 
> protocol at resource not representation level, which is what we're 
> already trying to do - prove that person with X certificate owns (or can 
> publish to) Y resource - nothing changes that way
>
>   
>> There's no ontology to map the document to the public key of its main described entity and there's
>> faik no standard to encode an rdf property as an http header.
>>     
>
> who even needs an rdf property in an http header, that's something that 
> has been added in to what we know as FOAF+SSL. We can easily achieve 
> what we want with a header like:
>
>    WebIDOwnerKey: FDB6FB1159710EAEEC69BEE94DF....
>
> You can still return back a foaf profile as the representation and carry 
> on as normal, this simply abstracts the necessary parts which *must* 
> always be present to prove somebody owns a resource in to the header, 
> and decouples it from the need for a profile in some format.
>
> To ACL authenticate somebody in a standard setup all you need to do is 
> get the X509, extract the webid, prove the person owns the resource 
> found when you dereference the webid then check if that persons allowed 
> to access the resource they requested or not.
>
> Nothing changes in any of this, it just removes the need for RDF or any 
> kind of representation, allowing us to define and adopt a single way to 
> prove resource ownership.
>   

Truly feeling the FORCE :-)


Kingsley
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>   
>> Cheers,
>> reto
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Seth Russell <russell.seth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Wow!  Do you mean that when you GET a profile document or whatever format
>>> and of whatever vocabulary you will have the public key right there in a
>>> already standardized styntax?
>>>
>>> + 2 to that
>>>
>>>
>>> Seth Russell
>>> Alpha testing: 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
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> we simply stick the public key in an http header instead.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> 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
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 







More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list