[OpenID] [foaf-dev] Can OpenID identify a person

[Peter Williams]

> > Some SemWeb people (notably TimBL) take care to have a 
> "non-Document"  
> > URI for themselves, distinct from their homepages. eg.  
> > http://example.org/foaf#memyself  ... but I don't know any usage of 
> > these as OpenID URIs. In fact I don't know if an OpenID can have a 
> > #hashblahblah section, or how that interacts with common 
> OpenID tools, 
> > services and practice.

 
> This is impossible, because # defines a section of the 
> document that is chosen locally and there can be only one 
> declaration of an OpenID per document.


Can we go through this more carefully, please?

My understanding was, that the user-centric URI is selected entirely by
the individual, who "controls" it. (a) it must be valid URI syntax; no
other constraints are specified (b) it may or may not have a
globally-resolvable domain-name component. If one wants "100% control"
over the URI and its portability, one does not use a domain name
CONTROLLED BY a domain name registrar. The same control dynamics also
apply to the XRI variant OpenIDs.




My understanding was also:- To identify the OP instance(s) "managing"
your URI/XRI (for this month), the URI must be the basis for the normal
openid Consumer lookup - to locate the OP servers' address/URLs. How
globally resolvable that location service shall be...is a function of
the resolvability of the OpenID URI name. 

Nothing however requires the Consumer to use a global resolution service
(based on public domain names and public XRI resolvers, probably), nor
for the OpenID to be globally resolvable. One could be in a private
OpenID management domain, where local knowledge is required by the
OpenID Consumer ...to complete username->svcprovideraddr resolution.




My understanding of XRDS was:- XRDS service-locator element in the
simple XML file are intended to help out in the above, for both the
public and the n private management domains where a URI/XRI are being
"managed." However, the XRDS document is at most non-authoritative,
being insecurely transferred. It's a "hint" process.




Is my mental model flawed, fundamentally?