Edit comment LC-2163 for Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) Working Group

Quick access to LC-2160 LC-2161 LC-2162 LC-2163

Comment LC-2163

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeProtocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER): Primer... Table of Contents 1. What is POWDER? 2. Why would I want to use POWDER? Grouping Data retrieval efficiency Profile matching Trustmarks Semantic Annotation 3. How does POWDER work in the real world? Trustmarks In the User's Browser Monitoring Description authentication Accessibility MobileOK Child Protection Functional User Experience Privileged Content Semantics Search Distinguishing opinion 4. How do I use POWDER? How do I create a Description Resource? How do I publish a DR? An XHTML/RDFa Fragment with Hyperlinks described using POWD... How do I make my DR more trustworthy? How do I find DRs for a document? When do I use POWDER-S or POWDER? How do I process POWDER documents? How do I process POWDER-S? 5. What do I need to use POWDER? Basic requirements Creation of a DR Linking between DR and a web resource 6. POWDER-S 7. Examples ICRA Labelling ICRA vocabulary mobileOK 8. Acknowledgements 9. References [DC [DR] [FOAF [FORMAL] [GRDDL] [GROUP] [IRI] [MOK] [PDR-GRDDL] [PRIMER] [SPARQL] [TESTS] [USECASES] [VOC] [WCAG] [WDRD] [XMLSIG] [WOT]
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Comment:

As we didn't have a quorum in UWA to discuss POWDER today, I'd like to
pose the following query...

According to the POWDER primer, certification of DRs is indicated in
order to elevate trust in descriptions.

Who is proposed to provide/manage such certifications? Would this be the
current SSL cert providers, for example?

If so, who says that these providers are qualified to assess/create
descriptions?

Or is the issue of the environment in which certification is managed
considered out of scope for the POWDER WG?

The question was raised internally within my company when someone
observed that this might be the creation of another "money making
scheme", as some people believe the SSL cert providers have been given a
license to print money.

Comments and clarifications welcome.

(Otherwise, we find POWDER intriguing, though we wonder what is meant by
"use of arbitrary RDF in POWDER documents" in the recent request for
feedback.)

---Rotan.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: Following the replies, Rotan wrote: The absence of an authority could be the difference between consumer acceptance and consumer rejection. Those who have already created a sense of authority (such as existing SSL cert providers) will be in a better position to establish authority for DR certification, regardless of their competence to actually assess the described resources. Yes, this "bigger picture" is probably out of scope for the WG. No doubt others have been thinking about it.

Proposed Resolution:

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)