[OpenID] Calling OpenID 2.0 editors (was RE: Problems withOpenID and TAG httpRange-14)

[Drummond Reed]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater at bytesexual.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:01 AM
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: 'Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)'; 'John Panzer'; david at sixapart.com;
> general at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Calling OpenID 2.0 editors (was RE: Problems
> withOpenID and TAG httpRange-14)
> 
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 07:55:41PM -0800, Drummond Reed wrote:
> > I'm not an OpenID editor but I remember that there was a great deal of
> > discussion around this and there was a good reason (security as I
> recall)
> > that the final redirect needed to be treated as the claimed identifier.
> 
> I would love to hear this reasoning because it makes no sense to me at the
> moment.

Editors, hellooo-ooo-ooo?

 
> > 3) From a SemWeb standpoint, I believe the right answer is that ALL the
> > identifiers in the chain - the original identifier, all redirects, and
> any
> > "override" back from the OP - should all be considered synonyms for the
> > identified resource. In other words, rdf:sameAs statements.
> 
> This is incorrect. 303 redirects do not imply rdf:sameAs.

Noah, it would helpful to me to understand why this is so. Are they not all
identifiers of the same resource? Isn't that what a redirect means? Or are
you saying that the fact they are identifiers that resolve to a resource
does not make them RDF statements?

=Drummond