[foaf-protocols] webid group said... something interesting

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 17:40:05 CET 2011


On 22 March 2011 17:34, peter williams <home_pw at msn.com> wrote:
> Take away from the webid group call.
>
>
>
> It’s pointless talking about the letters rdf in a browser group (opera
> excepted), as folks are still scarred by wars over a decade ago.
>
>
>
> RDFa is “just about” a discussable topic – because its rendered like HTML
> and works with today’s browsers. It doesn’t set the pulse racing, and eyes
> rolling.

I do like RDF but for some reason the brand isnt as powerful as some
others, such as the Web itself.  I tend to use the term html5 to talk
about the data layer of the web, as people seem to have more interest
in that branding.  Under the hood it's all the same thing, though.

>
>
>
> W3C is no longer formally agnostic about certs and ssl (while actually being
> quietly subversive); it has taken a position in the mainstream. It’s still
> looking for its mission in that mainstream. Webid and others have indicated
> there is now a webby position to be had – distinct from the usual IETF, PKI,
> identity management groups.
>
>
>
> Techniques like webid can offend certain camps (e.g. OCSP) as they invade
> the space (turf wars) by unsettling that which certain camps thought settled
> (only CAs can issue validation statements about certs).
>
>
>
> Webid does have one message that resonates with W3C culture – its focus on
> individuals (and self-assertions, UCI etc) – a space vacated by the openid
> folks once they went  corporate (having failed to make the right pitch to
> individuals, given XRD/XRI). W3C can thus speak for the little guys in some
> sense, globally, attempting to find a balance between individuals and
> corporate interests. At least individuals have a space to have a say (unlike
> most corporate security spaces)
>
>
>
> W3C has long history in privacy and signatures (e.g. p3p) which shows a
> “policy” acumen. This has not translated however into comprehensive family
> of related standards, that bridge the security policy and global security
> practices where W3C has shown strong capabilities.
>
>
>
> W3C recognizes that it doesn’t need to do what IETF or Kantara does, or have
> formal positions on the US national id program – as it must retain a non-US
> centric position – being a global movement. This is going to be hard to
> execute (since 95% of the initiatives are US…led, having comprehensive
> funding and the dominant market).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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