RE: WebID-ISSUE-29 (prehistory): WebID prehistory [research]

With David onboard, you get two views: the current ISO/ITU-T view (and those of its backers, including military users), and the IETF ldap view (X.500 technology going forward).

Indirectly, now W3C is getting those liasons it wanted in the charter.

The way into the national identity program initiatives (vs the technology set) is through the Kantara folks. It’s the diplomacy corps, there to bring some harmony to the technical folks who otherwise squabble over bits and bytes, endlessly.

Since David can actually write, I'll get out  of the way on this topic.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 5:07 AM
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Subject: WebID-ISSUE-29 (prehistory): WebID prehistory [research]


WebID-ISSUE-29 (prehistory): WebID prehistory [research]

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/29

Raised by: Henry Story
On product: research

As I understand, early X500 directories were meant to be a global naming system. X509 Distinguished Names were meant to be global dereferenceable names, where servers were meant to be able to look for more information, perhaps even be able to retrieve a public key. It seems then that WebID is just fulfilling the initial vision of X500, by solving the global naming problem using the Semantic Web. It would be good to have a short write up of this, to help show how WebID is just pursuing the initial vision of the X500 founders. 

See an initial thread on this:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Feb/0052.html

As it happens Prof David Chadwick who wrote the 1996 book "Understanding x.500 (the directory)" is an invited expert and will be certainly be able to guide us on this http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dwc8/pubs.html

Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 13:55:52 UTC