[OpenID] Windows Live ID OpenID CTP Status Update (August 2009)
Story Henry
henry.story at bblfish.net
Sun Aug 30 16:49:56 UTC 2009
On 30 Aug 2009, at 17:28, Peter Williams wrote:
> 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. []"
That is sleight of hand in the Java documentation. That Java
documentation is not authoritative on the meaning of URLs. That's an
implementors point of view. :-)
> 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.
Yes, the Java URL class is designed to fetch a document, and to do
that it follows the HTTP protocol, which does indeed indicate that one
has to strip the #tag . So at that level it is correct. The Java URL
class is focused on that behavior. It does not take the bigger
architectural picture into consideration.
> 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 coming to a conclusion too quickly here. The JavaDoc
does not exclude the IETF definition. It is just captures a part of it.
OpenIds and WebIds are very compatible. As I mentioned in my previous
email, foaf has the foaf:openid relation that relaties an agent to his
webid, in a way very similar in which it relates an foaf:Agent to a
email box with the foaf:mbox relation, or a foaf:Agent to a home page
with the foaf:homepage relation. Each of these relations is an
indirect identifier of an agent.
>
> 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 am finding that people coming to the semantic web via foaf+ssl get
these concepts quite quickly. We have php developers who went from
knowing nothing about the semantic web to writing foaf+ssl servers.
The documentation and tools are now good enough that one can get going
quite easily.
> 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).
There is no competition. WebIds are direct identifiers, OpenIds are
indirect identifiers. They fulfil different roles, and are useful in
different ways. As I mentioned in my blog "Join the foaf+ssl community
and get OpenId for free" we have created a proxy OpenId service that
uses foaf+ssl authentication.
http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/join_the_foaf_ssl_community
> 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.
I don't think we need to compromise - and I don't mean that we have to
fight each other. :-) OpenIds and WebIds are compatible, so there is
no strain.
Hope this helps,
Henry
> -----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> <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
>
More information about the general
mailing list