[foaf-protocols] webid-linked claim verification?

Reto Bachmann-Gmür me at farewellutopia.com
Sun Sep 5 15:31:58 CEST 2010


On Monday, August 30, 2010, Henry Story <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:35, Nathan wrote:
>
>> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> On 26 August 2010 17:35, Seth Russell <russell.seth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In other words.  I want a library with the following 4 functions ...
>>>>
>>>> $id = signup()
>>>> $id = signin()
>>>> sendMessage ($id, $message)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think every webid should have a semantic inbox
>>
>> 100% agree re semantic inbox, and like seth's focus on simplicity
>
> Agree on semantic inbox. So we could develop something simple like the following:
>
> @prefox <http://joe.example/#> .
>
> :me webmail:inbox </inbox/>;
>     ....
>
>
> As with pingback, </inbox/> should return an html form, with a message field for the referent of the webid (with a well known attribute name). The page could have a type
>
> <> a webmail:PostPage;
>    webmail:recipient <http://joe.example/#me> .
>
> It is very important that the PostPage refer back to the webid, as that is what is needed to avoid spamming.

don't like the idea of forcing that html form solution. wouldn't any
uri (as with foaf:mbox) do? also I don't the spam prevention by
referring back to the webid. the best we can do is to force spammer to
expose webids by requiring a webid for sending a message.

cheers,
reto
>
>    This is a simple protocol we could develop easily.
>
> Henry
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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