[foaf-protocols] Fwd: [Freedombox-discuss] WebID

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Mar 7 20:04:33 CET 2011

On 3/7/11 1:40 PM, peter williams wrote:
> Revocation is best handled by "double" validation. Imagine that having don't
> VA process #1 using perl, the VA now asks Kingley's server for a second
> opinion. Kingley's server can be viewed as revocation server - that
> "qualifies" the validation of round #1. Only if 2 supporting channels
> support the original assertion is it inter-subjectively valid. If one
> extends this further, only if n supporting channels support the assertion
> (where the channels recommendations are mashed up using the GNU PGP trust
> albegra) is it valid.
> The trick for the packager is now to ensure that, like wintrust in windows,
> one can call back several different trust providers, from simple, to double,
> to complex (GNU PGP). Ideally, which one is used would be driven using the
> AppPolicies extension in the client cert (if present), overidable by the VA
> locally
Also note, my SPARQL endpoint itself can be WebID protected. Thus when 
doing this, I can set up an ACL for agents that can actually lookup my 
data in my particular data space :-)



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/20110307/1f863139/attachment.htm 

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list