[OpenID] Windows Live ID OpenID CTP Status Update (August 2009)

Sun Aug 30 15:28:04 UTC 2009

I took my counsel on fragments from http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/net/URL.html?is-external=true

"This fragment is not technically part of the URL. []"

I'll guess that the writers were simply trying to capture a less-than-formal notion of URLs from earlier generations of the web - that we also apply in openid.

I do now see we have philosophical different here, which may make make it hard for webids and openids to work well together (if we all get too tied to formal models, and starting citing abstract definitions).

We need to avoid frustration over such things. We probably all remember frustrating some poor guy over his desire for the openid spec to mandate and require http correctness, over applying 301s for persistent name changes, etc.

I'm not interested in engaging in world where, like semweb and XRI/XDI, webids are competing with openids for adoption (for this or that reason). Once Microsoft acts, I will have confidence that 100Million consumers can talk to our 1 millions realtor's portals, using openid for websso - aka problem solved. To go the next level for access control and trust management, with webids and foaf perhaps, some compromises are going to have to be fashioned.

-----Original Message-----
From: hjs at bblfish.net [mailto:hjs at bblfish.net] On Behalf Of Story Henry
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:24 AM
To: Peter Williams
Cc: openid-general at lists.openid.net; John Bradley
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Windows Live ID OpenID CTP Status Update (August 2009)

On 30 Aug 2009, at 05:50, Peter Williams wrote:

> What Im trying to recall is the markup used commonly for a control
> _tree_, in your typical ASP.NET rendering of a server side object set.
>
> Perhaps its something like http://foo.com/#form$element$elementchild
> where everything following the # is a (compound) "tag". By
> definition the semantics of any such tag are "resource-defined"-
> which ASP.NET properly defined for its resources. Under the formal
> interpretation, the fragment is not (and this is counter intuitive)
> not part of the URI!!

No, that is incorrect. A URL with a # fragment is a URL.

see:
http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#components

It is just that the meaning of that URL is specified by the
representation returned. see section 3.5 where it says:

[[
The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect
identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary
resource and additional identifying information. The identified
secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the primary
resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or
some other resource defined or described by those representations.
]]

So the following are two different URIs:

http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html
http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#components

The first one refers to an html document, which is returned by a
successful HTTP GET request.
The second refers to a part of the first document, because the html of
the returned document contains the following html:

<h2 id="rfc.section.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5.</a>&nbsp;<a
name="fragment" href="#fragment">Fragment</a></h2>

and html specifies that id fragments refers to document parts.

Similarly

http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card

refers to an rdf document, more precisely a
foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, which is a subclass of documents. On the
other hand

http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me

refers to me, the person. This is specified by the representations
returned by the first URI.

> I know I wrote user control for asp.net that spat this kind of
> markup out, server side. I just don't remember the syntax.
>
> And I any case, a self-signed cert can have as many URIs as it
> likes, one per extended subject field: each a "synonym".
>
> If one cannot post-fix the hash to "qualify" the webid, one can
> always add another URI... that is the webid's "synonym" - used much
> as in the XRD world of canonical-ids, to ensure one has an
> unambiguous reference point (for validation logics).

Given that the beginning of your argument is mistaken, I am not sure I
follow you anymore here.

>
> Anyways, think about the main point some more. The point was: that
> which openid2 removed from openid1 (rp-side name linking) CAN be put
> back - especially if the larger OPs refuse to support openid2-style
> vanity delegation.

Sorry, I did not follow the story about vanity delegation.

Just as a matter of interest, in case it is relevant here, in foaf one
can indirectly identify a person via their OpenId.

$ cwm  http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card --ntriples | grep -i '/
openid'

<http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/openid
 > <http://bblfish.net/> .

<http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me>     <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/openid
 > <http://openid.sun.com/bblfish> .

This is because foaf:openid is defined as being a
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. It only one thing can have that
relation to the same openid.

Can you tell me what you are trying to achieve without using too many
technical terms :-)
I'll try to explain how one can do that in the foaf world.

Henry

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hjs at bblfish.net [mailto:hjs at bblfish.net] On Behalf Of Story
> Henry
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:29 PM
> To: Peter Williams
> Cc: John Bradley; openid-general at lists.openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Windows Live ID OpenID CTP Status Update
> (August 2009)
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2009, at 04:39, Peter Williams wrote:
>
>> Can we make the webid that we put in the self-signed cert have the
>> form
>>
>> http://foaf.com/peter.rdf#me#<hash> ?
>
> Don't think so. That's an invalid URL I believe. (I may be wrong)
>
> It is not good architecture to put meaning into URLs such that
> protocols depend on those - which is not to say that they should not
> be humanly readable. That ties URLs between sites much too closely
> together, and I believe unnecessarily.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general