IRC log of webid on 2012-10-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:05:21 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #webid
00:40:32 [timbl]
timbl has joined #webid
05:22:56 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #webid
06:36:35 [bblfish]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
06:36:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html bblfish
06:40:34 [trueg_]
trueg_ has joined #webid
07:22:17 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #webid
07:42:00 [fwagner]
fwagner has left #webid
07:44:27 [melvster]
melvster has joined #webid
07:44:36 [melvster]
morning all! :)
07:47:56 [develD]
develD has joined #webid
07:55:23 [trueg_]
trueg_ has joined #webid
07:56:16 [betehess]
betehess has joined #webid
07:57:10 [oberger]
oberger has joined #webid
08:00:48 [jonathandray]
jonathandray has joined #webid
08:02:54 [kotakagi]
kotakagi has joined #webid
08:04:04 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #webid
08:05:59 [philipp]
philipp has joined #webid
08:07:18 [ttanaka2]
ttanaka2 has joined #webID
08:07:20 [wei]
wei has joined #webid
08:09:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webid
08:09:28 [betehess]
RRSAgent, please generate minutes
08:09:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html betehess
08:09:34 [deiu]
deiu has joined #webid
08:09:44 [betehess]
chair: bblfish
08:09:46 [gregory]
gregory has joined #webid
08:09:52 [betehess]
scribenick: betehess
08:10:11 [betehess]
present+ Alexandre Bertails
08:10:21 [betehess]
RRSAgent, please generate minutes
08:10:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html betehess
08:10:25 [melvster]
present+ Melvin Carvalho
08:10:27 [bblfish]
present+ bblfish
08:10:31 [deiu]
present+ Andrei Sambra
08:10:37 [jonathandray]
present+ Jonathan Dray
08:10:47 [philipp]
present+ Philipp Frischmuth
08:10:51 [jin]
jin has joined #webid
08:12:11 [gregory]
present+ gregory barry
08:12:35 [sangrae]
sangrae has joined #webid
08:13:00 [betehess]
present+ Steeve Holbrook
08:14:19 [chsiao]
chsiao has joined #webid
08:14:43 [sandro]
sandro has joined #webid
08:15:17 [gaiaphj]
gaiaphj has joined #webid
08:15:59 [betehess]
present+ TimBL
08:18:24 [bblfish]
Topic: WebID future in W3C
08:18:58 [bblfish]
spec http://webid.info/spec
08:19:16 [bblfish]
bertails sees this as strongly related to LDP
08:19:54 [bblfish]
me +1 it is, though not completely dependent on it.
08:20:37 [melvster]
q+
08:20:39 [bblfish]
bertails: ldp also would find it very useful to have webid
08:21:26 [bblfish]
... explains LDP is about putting data in documents, modify data, etc ... in a RESTful way
08:21:44 [bblfish]
... where RDF was about data, ldp is about modifying over the web
08:22:00 [bblfish]
... ldp is interested in access control - it's in their charter
08:22:12 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #webid
08:22:48 [bblfish]
... these resources need protection since people need to change resources
08:22:52 [bblfish]
q+
08:23:09 [betehess]
ack next
08:23:36 [melvster]
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ReadWriteLinkedData.html
08:23:45 [bblfish]
melvster introduces the RWW Community group
08:23:46 [timbl]
timbl has joined #webid
08:24:08 [timbl]
RRSAgent, pointer?
08:24:08 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-irc#T08-24-08
08:24:11 [bblfish]
the web vision was initially a Read and Write space.
08:25:58 [bblfish]
melvster webid is orthogonal to ldp. All systems for global communication uses global ids.
08:26:44 [bblfish]
... the explain in simple terms what WebID is
08:27:06 [bblfish]
... the goal of pki should be to simplify the message
08:28:03 [bblfish]
... the RWW group has 60 people, and is incubating specs, ...
08:28:18 [bblfish]
... ldp should be a best practice for what the RWW should be
08:28:26 [bblfish]
... it will be a recommendation
08:28:53 [betehess]
present+ Ann Bassetti
08:29:04 [bblfish]
timbl : concerned that the ldp and rww might diverge
08:29:40 [bblfish]
melvster: we're very much into dog fooding and trying out new things
08:29:45 [deiu]
q?
08:30:10 [bblfish]
betehess: many people speak about linked data, but not many good definitions of it.
08:30:36 [bblfish]
... so the important thing of ldp is that it will give a formal definition of linked data.
08:31:15 [bblfish]
... the dependency between webid and ldp is therefore conceptual at that level
08:32:14 [bblfish]
... but there is also a practical use of WebID
08:32:43 [bblfish]
... certificates work everywhere
08:34:59 [betehess]
timbl: you have plenty of authentication systems out there
08:35:16 [bblfish]
[[
08:35:17 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webid
08:35:17 [betehess]
... at the end, we need to ask them to produce http uris
08:35:28 [betehess]
.... that's the fundamental thing
08:35:40 [AnnBassetti]
AnnBassetti has joined #webid
08:35:41 [bblfish]
[[
08:35:42 [bblfish]
A URI that refers to an Agent - Person, Robot, Group or other thing that can have Intentions. The WebID should be a URI which when dereferenced returns a representation whose description uniquely identifies the Agent as the controller of a public key. In our example the WebID refers to Bob. A WebID is usually a URL with a #tag, as the meaning of such a URL is defined in the document.
08:35:44 [bblfish]
]]
08:37:04 [betehess]
timbl: let's imagine an arbitrary auth system
08:37:27 [betehess]
... how would go allow someone to press a webid button, and at the end, the LDP system works
08:37:45 [betehess]
... I'd see webid as a module of LDP
08:40:52 [betehess]
... just like any other auth system
08:41:07 [betehess]
... we should have a common interface layer that would be interoperable with RWW
08:41:35 [betehess]
betehess: for me, webid (without certificates) would be this common layer
08:41:49 [bblfish]
so the question is whether WebID is about the tie to get a WebID or if it should be the thing that abstracts all other identification systems
08:42:01 [betehess]
melvster: identication and authentication are two different things
08:42:14 [betehess]
q+
08:43:01 [AnnBassetti]
melvster: cannot have authentication unless you have identification first
08:43:21 [jmvanel]
jmvanel has joined #webid
08:43:55 [betehess]
melvster: the idea of URIs is universal and cover both worlds
08:44:02 [bblfish]
melvster was also saying that identity is seperate
08:44:28 [betehess]
melvster: browserid relies on email
08:44:29 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webid
08:44:51 [betehess]
timbl: the email is used to authenticate
08:44:58 [betehess]
... you could expose that in an http uri
08:45:37 [betehess]
bblfish: I'm against webid being the thing binding everything together
08:46:08 [betehess]
bblfish: WebID is about tying a URL to a public key
08:46:15 [betehess]
... eg. WebID over TLS
08:46:23 [betehess]
... or webid over browserid
08:46:45 [betehess]
bblfish: so we should speak about WebID-TLD
08:46:51 [betehess]
s/TLD/TLS/
08:47:05 [betehess]
s/bblfish:/timbl:/
08:47:24 [betehess]
... so webid would be an endpoint
08:48:39 [betehess]
bblfish: any of the _global_ identity you get, you can bind them to other identities
08:49:00 [melvster]
q+
08:49:10 [betehess]
q+ to ask if RDF or LDP is part of the definition
08:49:48 [betehess]
timbl: the designissues you're talking about just say that authz and authn are different
08:50:30 [betehess]
... this discussion is partly about branding
08:51:20 [betehess]
.... you can go to people, say that you have LDP systems, and tell them that you need something URL-based to do authentication
08:51:36 [betehess]
ack melv
08:51:52 [bblfish]
ack next
08:51:53 [betehess]
melvster: webid and webid-protocol are not the same
08:52:06 [AnnBassetti]
ReadWriteWeb)", "Storage", and "All"
08:52:13 [betehess]
... no you get 3 parts at the and
08:52:20 [bblfish]
melvster: identification, authentication, authorization
08:53:11 [betehess]
... I thought we have two definitions, that's why I'm not comfortable with tying the definition with public keys
08:53:26 [betehess]
... would be just fine for the protocol part
08:53:34 [betehess]
ack me
08:53:35 [Zakim]
betehess, you wanted to ask if RDF or LDP is part of the definition
08:54:31 [bblfish]
bethesse has a good story for ldp: it needs a URL identifier
08:55:15 [AnnBassetti]
s/ReadWriteWeb)", "Storage", and "All"//
08:56:08 [betehess]
bblfish: I agree: identity, authn and authz are not the same
08:56:13 [AnnBassetti]
TimBL drew diagram: circles on left representing "Auth1" "Auth2" "OpenID" "Auth3" "WebID" .. each with lines going toward area that is the web as whole
08:56:56 [betehess]
[looks like henry is tying all this stuff to RDF on the whiteboard]
08:57:02 [rblin]
rblin has joined #webid
08:57:30 [AnnBassetti]
... where, the web includes "Apps", "RWW ReadWriteWeb)", "Storage", and "All"
08:59:14 [betehess]
q+
08:59:49 [AnnBassetti]
oh .. what I said is "All" is really "ACL"
09:00:07 [AnnBassetti]
s/"ALL"/"ACL"/
09:01:05 [betehess]
timbl: if you're building apps, you can write rules
09:01:13 [betehess]
... what alex is saying is about prooving
09:01:24 [deiu]
q+
09:01:28 [betehess]
-q
09:04:41 [betehess]
betehess: for the record, I didn't want LDP to be working specifically on webid or webacls, just to focus on protocol itself
09:04:48 [betehess]
... still the use-case must be considered
09:05:07 [deiu]
Link for the auth diagram: http://www.w3.org/wiki/File:Auth-diagram-tpac.jpg
09:05:23 [betehess]
melvster: in the rww group, we're looking closely at LDP, but not only that
09:05:39 [betehess]
... we may have to incubate some ideas ourselves
09:05:52 [betehess]
ack next
09:06:09 [betehess]
deiu: re: the diagram and linking multiple protocols
09:06:11 [bblfish]
access control on LDP will be Friday morning http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1
09:06:18 [betehess]
... it's important (bootstrapping)
09:06:52 [betehess]
... you have multiple systems, but it's easier if it's only a link for the application
09:07:29 [betehess]
... sometimes, apps don't trust enough some authn systems (for some reasons)
09:07:46 [betehess]
... but webid here, already sends many informations about you
09:08:00 [betehess]
timbl: the software architecture is a key thing
09:08:57 [betehess]
... we also need people to be able to create identities easily, for the open market
09:09:01 [bblfish]
q+
09:09:22 [betehess]
deiu: so is webid just another authn protocol? or the common layer?
09:09:33 [betehess]
timbl: yes, that's the question
09:10:21 [betehess]
... definitely about branding
09:10:35 [betehess]
... take html5 for example
09:10:43 [jonathandray]
jonathandray has joined #webid
09:10:52 [betehess]
... it's the Open Web Platform, including JS and other stuff
09:12:57 [betehess]
betehess: for many people, webid == webid-over-tls
09:13:18 [betehess]
bblfish: I'll rename the spec to mention TLS explicitly in the title
09:13:40 [betehess]
melvster: browserid is mozilla's identity in the browser
09:13:50 [betehess]
... it's email based, centralized
09:14:25 [betehess]
... the private key is kept by the identity provider
09:14:30 [betehess]
... it's the other way around
09:15:08 [betehess]
... they say it's federated
09:15:19 [betehess]
... but it starts at @@.com
09:15:30 [betehess]
... but you can opt-out by deploying your own service
09:15:52 [betehess]
trueg_: the idea is that each email provider had their own system
09:16:03 [betehess]
... but nobody supports it so far
09:19:43 [betehess]
bblfish: we should look at what makes browserid and webid similar
09:19:59 [timbl]
(Earlier: timbl: This should be a flexibility point in the architecture, that many systems can be used for authentication, and each end up providing to a RWW-LDP system what it needs, an HTTP RDF URI for an agent.
09:20:01 [betehess]
... this could help defining what webid is
09:20:04 [trueg_]
q+
09:20:13 [betehess]
q- bblfish
09:22:15 [betehess]
trueg_: the question about branding is important
09:22:38 [betehess]
... like when alex were mentionning the connection to LDP
09:23:04 [betehess]
... we need to stress that so that when we speak to people, we don't scare them away
09:23:29 [betehess]
... we should tell them simple things that we need
09:24:17 [betehess]
... "an agent/person on the Web is authentified by an HTTP URI"
09:24:29 [betehess]
... this is how we would brisge the gap with LDP
09:24:45 [betehess]
... this would help us defining WebACLs as well
09:25:12 [betehess]
... because at the end, this is what the Web is about
09:25:31 [betehess]
timbl: yes, in term of systems, this is what the systems return
09:26:16 [AnnBassetti]
s/brisge/bridge/
09:27:40 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #webid
09:42:53 [chsiao]
chsiao has joined #webid
09:52:40 [rblin]
rblin has joined #webid
10:00:38 [jin]
jin has joined #webid
10:11:17 [ttanaka2]
ttanaka2 has joined #webid
10:13:28 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webid
10:14:25 [betehess]
RRSAgent, please generate minutes
10:14:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html betehess
10:16:38 [JonathanJ1]
JonathanJ1 has joined #webid
10:18:17 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #webid
10:19:12 [betehess]
was proposed earlier: an agent/person on the Web is authentified by an HTTP URI
10:19:38 [betehess]
during the break, timbl proposed the following: an agent/person on the Web is denoted by an HTTP URI
10:19:50 [bblfish]
definition of a WebID
10:19:52 [bblfish]
?
10:21:03 [webr3]
"an agent/person on the Web is denoted by an HTTP URI", that HTTP URI is a "WebID", WebID being the name for a URI which identifies an agent.
10:22:29 [webr3]
(FOAF+SSL -> WebID Protocol -> WebID Auth Protocol) != WebID
10:23:31 [melvster]
+1
10:23:33 [bblfish]
but the question is what if I create a URI a WebID for webr3 ?
10:24:30 [bblfish]
would that be webr3's webid?
10:24:48 [webr3]
then that is a WebID for me, a URI which identifies me, it may not be my con:preferred/canonical one, but it refers to me. It is "a webid" not "the webid"
10:25:01 [kotakagi]
kotakagi has joined #webid
10:25:13 [webr3]
The one I mint for myself can be deemed authoratitive, due to dns & uri ownership, and backed up by sigs and even checking the social graph
10:25:52 [webr3]
in webid protocol I may use "a" webid for msyelf, it's not the one true only identifier
10:26:25 [betehess]
webr3, FYI, we're quite thrilled by your definition, we're discussing about it
10:27:48 [betehess]
bblfish: how do I know if the http uri is not for a cat?
10:28:01 [betehess]
alex: you don't
10:28:10 [bblfish]
or how do your know it's not a URI for a relation, or a type
10:29:46 [gaiaphj]
gaiaphj has joined #webid
10:31:03 [bblfish]
betehess BrowserId has been renamed Persona
10:33:16 [webr3]
'http uri is not for *********', that's what linked data covers, as timbl discussed on www-tag recently, what a URI refers to is in it's usage within a conversation, linked data (via ownership from dns system, and with http uris so you can dereference) allows a URI "owner" to describe what a thing refers to, in a way that unambiguous enough for the general conversation, and within that community
10:33:30 [betehess]
people asking: does it really make sense to try to talk to the browserid people? or should we stick to LDP?
10:33:36 [deiu]
q+
10:34:19 [betehess]
melvster: you only authenticate when you need to, that's another reason to dissociate with identification
10:35:11 [betehess]
bblfish: so far, they use a JSON based certificate
10:35:30 [betehess]
... they have pushed back on having an URL in there
10:36:00 [betehess]
q+
10:36:11 [trueg_]
q-
10:36:18 [JonathanJ1]
JonathanJ1 has left #webid
10:36:36 [betehess]
deiu: maybe we're getting side-tracked by other protocols
10:36:41 [betehess]
... it's basically linked-data
10:37:15 [abasset]
abasset has joined #webid
10:37:23 [betehess]
... if this is not about Linked Data, they could use whatever they want
10:37:26 [webr3]
it's side tracking to webid-protocol, not to webid - and the people in this group are concerned with both.
10:37:29 [webr3]
it doesn't matter who you speak to in which groups, what's important is looking at each protocol and finding a way to get a URI for the person out of it, even if by way of a 3rd party/delegated service - for (1) Identification. Auth* is of no concern to Identification. THis is for wider scope consideration in our apps though, and not specific to WebID-Protocol, which is one of many options for users.
10:37:43 [betehess]
... if we don't want to waste, we should focus on LDP
10:38:22 [betehess]
melvster: this is about naming things, not convincing people to use LDP
10:38:38 [betehess]
deiu: we need to use some keyword: HTTP, URIs, etc.
10:38:43 [betehess]
ack next
10:38:48 [deiu]
q-
10:38:57 [betehess]
ack next
10:39:11 [bblfish]
q+
10:40:21 [betehess]
alex: I agree we must focus on the LDP people
10:40:36 [betehess]
bblfish: this definition may be too broad
10:41:34 [trueg_]
q+
10:41:38 [betehess]
... if w3c says that they are working on something universal, we'll be seen at too imperial
10:41:42 [betehess]
ack bbl
10:43:20 [bblfish]
that's ok if a WebID URI denotes an Agent, then an e-mail address cannot be a WebID since it refers to an e-mail address
10:43:28 [timbl]
timbl has joined #webid
10:44:03 [bblfish]
but note that if a WebID URI denotes an Agent, then an e-mail address cannot be a WebID since it refers to an e-mail address, an openid cannot be a WebID because OpenId refers to a document
10:44:22 [bblfish]
s/e-mail address/mbox/
10:46:44 [melvster]
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#indirect-identification
10:46:52 [melvster]
To say that the URI "mailto:nadia@example.com" identifies both an Internet mailbox and Nadia, the person, introduces a URI collision. However, we can use the URI to indirectly identify Nadia. Identifiers are commonly used in this way.
10:47:04 [melvster]
+q
10:47:04 [timbl]
A WebID is an HTTP LDP HTTP URI which denotes a person. There are protocols to get them from various ways, Openid-W for example from a OpenID page, BrowserID-W from an email dress using Moz's system, webfinger-W using webfinger, and WebID-TLS to to get it using across-linked cert.
10:47:32 [timbl]
q+ to suggest that
10:48:29 [betehess]
timbl: it's not about removing the security from the system
10:48:46 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
10:48:52 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #webid
10:51:08 [betehess]
bblfish: when are people interested about their identity? when they authenticate?
10:51:24 [webr3]
q+
10:51:27 [betehess]
alex: no, I could refer to your webid without authenticating you
10:51:47 [timbl]
q?
10:51:49 [abasset]
most people, BTW, don't know anything about 'identity' in a computing sense .. they just want to do things they want to do
10:52:09 [betehess]
trueg_: just wanted to comment on separation btw ldp and profile url
10:52:22 [betehess]
... with webr3' def, we only have the URL
10:52:35 [betehess]
... is there benefit for us?
10:52:39 [betehess]
... how much does it help?
10:52:49 [betehess]
q+
10:52:51 [timbl]
q+ to suggest "A WebID is an HTTP LDP HTTP URI which denotes a person. There are protocols to get them from various ways, Openid-W for example from a OpenID page, BrowserID-W from an email dress using Moz's system, webfinger-W using webfinger, and WebID-TLS to to get it using across-linked cert."
10:52:57 [betehess]
q+ later
10:53:31 [betehess]
... there should be dereferencable urls, and a profile, whether it's foaf or not
10:53:40 [betehess]
... it's been aroudn for a while
10:53:55 [timbl]
In fact FOAF URI is not a good term for it really as FOAF is just one application
10:54:13 [betehess]
melvster: webid protocol is more specific
10:54:19 [betehess]
... used to be foaf-ssl
10:54:22 [webr3]
adapted slightly: "A WebID is a LD (or derferencable) HTTP URI which denotes an agent. There are protocols to get them from various ways, Openid-W for example from a OpenID page, BrowserID-W from an email dress using Moz's system, webfinger-W using webfinger, and WebID-TLS to to get it using across-linked cert." (minus LDP, and agent rather than perosn)
10:54:27 [betehess]
... but webid is a cool name
10:54:55 [webr3]
q-
10:55:21 [betehess]
trueg_: don't dispute that, just saying that having just http uri may be too broad
10:55:52 [betehess]
webr3, people here are saying that you're getting too complicated :-)
10:56:17 [deiu]
the important part of that definition is "A WebID is a LD (or derferencable) HTTP URI which denotes an agent."
10:56:19 [betehess]
trueg_: we should stick with http urls
10:56:30 [webr3]
lol fair point - just needs a URI which points to some linked data about the agent referred to by the uri
10:56:48 [betehess]
q?
10:56:51 [timbl]
webr3, by "or derferencable" do you mean (a) i.e. dereferencable or (b) or any non-RDF dereferncebale URI
10:56:52 [betehess]
ack tru
10:56:57 [webr3]
auth protocols can be bootstrapped to get those uris (webfinger-w etc)
10:57:30 [bblfish]
q?
10:57:32 [webr3]
timbl, dereferencable to "linked data"
10:57:38 [betehess]
ack tim
10:57:38 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest that and to suggest "A WebID is an HTTP LDP HTTP URI which denotes a person. There are protocols to get them from various ways, Openid-W for example
10:57:42 [Zakim]
... from a OpenID page, BrowserID-W from an email dress using Moz's system, webfinger-W using webfinger, and WebID-TLS to to get it using across-linked cert."
10:57:52 [betehess]
timbl: we're talking about systems design
10:58:03 [betehess]
... it's a LD URL
10:58:06 [betehess]
... or it may not support LDP
10:58:17 [betehess]
... it could writable
10:58:18 [betehess]
... or not
10:58:28 [betehess]
... but it's critical to be able to GET it
10:58:37 [betehess]
... and you need to get back an RDF model
10:58:58 [betehess]
... foaf is for social networking application
10:59:05 [webr3]
timbl, clarification request - GET it diretly, or indirectly (via a 3rd party service)
10:59:27 [betehess]
... so I like LD URI
10:59:33 [betehess]
... you GET an RDF model
11:00:01 [betehess]
... and we could say: TURTLE is mandatory
11:00:08 [betehess]
ack mel
11:00:20 [melvster]
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#indirect-identification
11:00:48 [melvster]
[ "Today, 10 Downing Street announced a series of new economic measures." ]
11:01:11 [melvster]
[ To say that the URI "mailto:nadia@example.com" identifies both an Internet mailbox and Nadia, the person, introduces a URI collision. However, we can use the URI to indirectly identify Nadia. Identifiers are commonly used in this way. ]
11:01:11 [betehess]
melvster: it's an example of indirect ident
11:01:55 [betehess]
timbl: that's why I use a stricter definition
11:02:19 [betehess]
... "denote" for me is a function
11:02:33 [betehess]
... mailto designs a mailbox, not a person
11:02:40 [betehess]
q-
11:02:41 [betehess]
q-
11:03:37 [betehess]
alex: sooo, are we putting LD in the first definition?
11:03:50 [betehess]
bblfish: we already have "web" in webid, so yes
11:04:12 [webr3]
q+ to say perhaps there are two strands to this conversation, one is to define well known protocol that uses LD, and the other how to bootstrap other auth* systems in order to get (a) a WebID and (b) more information about the agent referred to
11:04:21 [JonathanJ1]
JonathanJ1 has joined #webid
11:04:26 [webr3]
1- as I can't actualyl "say" it :|
11:04:30 [webr3]
q-
11:04:33 [betehess]
webr3: we're focusing on LD
11:04:37 [bblfish]
+1
11:05:00 [bblfish]
s/+1//
11:05:03 [betehess]
alex: please wait for a PROPOSAL definition
11:06:10 [timbl]
A WebID is a LD HTTP URI which denotes an agent."
11:07:22 [timbl]
A 4* LD URI
11:09:44 [webr3]
Or broader: "A WebID is a 4* Linked Data URI which denotes an Agent" - every constraint we add cuts somebody out, but make implementaiton easier
11:11:02 [melvster]
http://5stardata.info/
11:12:00 [timbl]
"A WebID is a HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE."
11:12:16 [timbl]
is slightly more constrained than "A WebID is a 4* Linked Data URI which denotes an Agent"
11:12:26 [bblfish]
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
11:14:43 [timbl]
"A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE.
11:15:18 [bblfish]
I have a problem with tying to turtle in the definition of WebID
11:15:47 [webr3]
+1 on "A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE." it adds constraints which make it ideal, negating httpRange-14, and not forcing people to have 5000 different parsers
11:17:02 [betehess]
q?
11:17:27 [bblfish]
timbl is pushing back on beting too general with how things could work ( because I had suggested GRDDLing documents )
11:18:10 [betehess]
q+ to introduce webr3's remark
11:19:17 [betehess]
ack me
11:19:17 [Zakim]
betehess, you wanted to introduce webr3's remark
11:19:29 [webr3]
betehess, please add that a tight definition doesn't preclude bootstraping/grddl etc, people can and will still do that -but the end goal must be something interoperable using simple standards
11:19:47 [webr3]
and ty
11:20:09 [timbl]
"A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE."
11:20:40 [bblfish]
timbl also mentioned that specs should be small and prrecises with clear specs so that they can be implemented and so that we tests can be built for for them: so that we can have guarantees
11:21:08 [betehess]
PROPOSAL: "A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE."
11:21:27 [deiu]
+1
11:21:31 [bblfish]
+1
11:21:33 [betehess]
+1
11:21:36 [jonathandray]
+1
11:21:39 [rblin]
+1
11:21:44 [gregory]
+1
11:21:44 [sangrae]
+1
11:21:47 [ttanaka2]
+1
11:21:47 [jin]
+1
11:21:48 [trueg_]
+1
11:21:48 [melvster]
0
11:21:54 [gaiaphj]
+1
11:22:05 [shh]
+1
11:22:11 [chsiao]
+1
11:22:45 [webr3]
+1
11:23:45 [betehess]
philipp: we develop ontowiki
11:24:01 [betehess]
... this relies on 303
11:24:06 [betehess]
... so this definition could be an issue for us
11:24:45 [betehess]
timbl: you do conneg? what do you do if people accepts rdf and html?
11:26:02 [betehess]
philipp: we may have a special case for webid
11:26:10 [betehess]
... which does not rely on redirects
11:26:20 [philipp]
+1
11:26:45 [timbl]
+1
11:27:16 [develD]
+1
11:27:17 [betehess]
RESOLVED: "A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE.
11:28:25 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #webid
11:29:36 [betehess]
for this afternoon, we have to define "webid over tls" and "webacls"
11:29:52 [betehess]
(just temporary names)
11:30:08 [webr3]
any possibility of doing "webid-no-tls" too?
11:30:28 [deiu]
webr3, that's what we'll try to find out
11:30:40 [betehess]
webr3, the concensus is that we don't want to prevent other people to define that
11:30:55 [betehess]
hence "over tls" for now
11:31:01 [webr3]
nice approach, don't do it but don't prevent it :)
11:31:28 [webr3]
what time is webacls oine, roughly?
11:32:18 [betehess]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
11:32:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html betehess
11:32:49 [shh]
q+
11:34:01 [betehess]
steve: part of the CG process, you can get with a deliverable with a pretty well finalized spec
11:34:03 [betehess]
... you can go to a WG with that
11:34:26 [betehess]
... they may have to adjust the charter
11:34:38 [betehess]
... but you need to define what you want
11:35:52 [shh]
ack shh
11:38:28 [betehess]
... in many way, it's a fast-track to get into a WG
11:43:24 [betehess]
BREAK
11:44:28 [betehess]
for the record: it's being proposed that this group will provide a set of specs to be brought to the LDP WG
11:44:47 [timbl]
In a straw poll, the group agreed unanimously
11:44:51 [betehess]
nobody opposed
11:44:51 [bblfish]
nobody present opposed it
11:45:15 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
11:45:20 [timbl]
that the group should proceed to make a Final Specification and charter or rechater WG work on it./
11:46:07 [shh]
Tim got it right. It's about getting a Final Specification.
11:53:16 [webr3]
is anybody from LDP group here, or nearby to get their opinion on it, espec Ivan
12:19:59 [tpacbot]
tpacbot has joined #webid
12:21:39 [kidehen]
webr3: late to this, but a WebID is a verifiable URI that denotes an agent. Verifiability is a critical attribute. WebID Authentication Protocol is an example of a verification protocol. Then we have loose coupling of the Agent ID and the verification/authentication protocol
12:26:35 [webr3]
kidehen, verifiable in different ways (crypto vs social graph inference)?
12:36:25 [kidehen]
webr3: verifiable using a variety of protocols: WebID Authentication Protocol (crypto and entity relationship semantics based reasoning)
12:37:46 [kidehen]
webr3: remember, we also have a variant of WebID that we call YouID. It users fingerprints where WebID currently uses the Public Key and WebID association. This is quite cut and paste friendly, for instance
12:38:44 [philipp]
philipp has joined #webid
12:38:47 [kidehen]
webr3: over time, there may be other protocols, so we don't want to conflate the Agent ID and verification mechanisms. This is how we broaden the tent, in due course
12:38:49 [webr3]
makes sense, wondering how important the verifiability of a webid is - is it always needed, only for some use cases, and who is doing the verification (same process for everybody?)
12:38:59 [webr3]
agree re "over time,..."
12:40:00 [kidehen]
webr3: there's a note and demo of this at: http://bit.ly/O4LNKf
12:44:13 [ttanaka2]
ttanaka2 has joined #webid
12:47:44 [trueg]
trueg has joined #webid
12:49:38 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
12:50:52 [webr3]
kidehen, any pointers to more info on youid? not quite grok'ing it
12:53:23 [kidehen]
webr3: all it does is compare certificate fingerprints i.e., you local cert claims matched to the same thing in your profile doc. All the user needs to do is associate their WebID with a fingerprint. As per the note which is a simple example of one profile doc that works with WebID or YouID/NetID. My comments emphasize this
12:55:13 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #webid
12:55:38 [kidehen]
webr3: what's most important at this juncture is loose coupling between the Agent ID and the verification protocol
12:55:43 [jin]
jin has joined #webid
12:56:18 [gregory]
gregory has joined #webid
12:56:27 [SteveH]
SteveH has left #webid
12:56:31 [webr3]
okay I follow now, and agree re loose coupling, always important
12:56:32 [kidehen]
webr3: conflation ultimately gets us into unnecessary trouble
12:56:34 [webr3]
ty kidehen
12:57:03 [deiu]
deiu has joined #webid
12:58:23 [sangrae]
sangrae has joined #webid
13:00:40 [wei]
wei has joined #webid
13:02:25 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #webid
13:03:35 [deiu]
based on this morning proposal, we just realized that facebook has 1 billion WebIDs
13:03:38 [deiu]
Proof: rapper -g -o turtle https://graph.facebook.com/andreisambra
13:04:45 [deiu]
https://graph.facebook.com/100004074420423# is a valid WebID now
13:05:01 [deiu]
scribe: deiu
13:06:11 [gaiaphj]
gaiaphj has joined #webid
13:06:14 [bblfish]
Topic: Test Suite in WebID Protocol over TLS
13:06:40 [webr3]
deiu: webid is https://graph.facebook.com/100004074420423# ( https://graph.facebook.com/andreisambra is invalid by earlier definition?)
13:06:47 [bblfish]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Test_Suite
13:07:20 [deiu]
webr3, indeed
13:07:45 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
13:09:32 [deiu]
bblfish: we have to test the existing implementations which currently use TLS
13:09:35 [webr3]
I've got a little js function somewhere which normalises facebook profile uris to their graph hash uri somewhere
13:09:48 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #webid
13:10:15 [deiu]
... which means adding tests that validate implementations according to the existing spec
13:10:45 [bblfish]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Test_Suite
13:10:59 [deiu]
... the tests should apply to applications as well as to agents/people
13:12:33 [oberger]
oberger has joined #webid
13:13:09 [deiu]
... the schema contains different tests cases for the authentication protocol (over TLS)
13:14:26 [mischat]
mischat has joined #webid
13:15:01 [deiu]
... grayed boxes are cases which went too deep/far
13:17:08 [deiu]
... the W3C recommends that all specs should have a validator
13:17:26 [kidehen]
deiu: Facebook has had Personal URIs (Linked Data principles compliant). These URIs are verifiable using their proprietary protocols. This exemplifies my point about loose coupling, in a nutshell. Also read: http://bit.ly/NzfyF0 -- an old post about Facebook Linked Data.
13:17:35 [deiu]
... all implementations should pass the validator tests
13:18:17 [deiu]
kidehen, my previous comment on facebook was related to this morning's talk
13:18:51 [kidehen]
deiu: we have to separate WebID and RWW testsuites. If we don't we will stall, as we have for some years now.
13:19:25 [deiu]
kidehen, do you have access to this morning's logs?
13:19:49 [kidehen]
deiu: RWW-0 should be the interop/test suite for RWW which is loosely coupled. WebID can have its own which has been in WIP for a while now
13:20:06 [kidehen]
deiu: I am reading from the bottom up, so I'll rewind to the top soon
13:20:49 [webr3]
seperate WebID, WebID Protocol, and RWW tests (webid != a verifiable webid != verifiable webid w/ webid-tls)
13:21:08 [deiu]
thanks webr3 :)
13:21:37 [kidehen]
deiu: A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent agreement you mean? If so, I don't agree with that. It's pragmatic for sure, but very susceptible to the problems that conflation will ultimately unleash
13:22:05 [deiu]
kidehen, PROPOSAL: "A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE."
13:22:08 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #webid
13:22:31 [kidehen]
deiu: you can't tell someone that has a hashless de-referencable that it isn't a WebID, that's not the way to do it
13:22:50 [chsiao]
chsiao has joined #webid
13:22:51 [kidehen]
deiu: you get a profile document bearing Turtle content, but that's an option
13:22:54 [deiu]
the idea was to decouple the identity part of WebID from the authentication part
13:23:05 [kidehen]
deiu: we don't need to break Web Architecture to make this thing work
13:23:24 [kidehen]
deiu: yes, +1 for the decoupling
13:23:53 [deiu]
and we're not, we're just separating the URIs which identify people/agents, from the other URIs
13:24:07 [kidehen]
deiu: but there's a problem with mandating hash URIs that resolve to profile documents with turtle content. Even though that's mighty pragmatic and by far the easiest route.
13:24:39 [deiu]
the goal is to bring WebID (the identity part) closer to the LDP work
13:25:18 [kidehen]
deiu: a URI denotes things. That's it. A Linked Data URI denotes things in such a way that the denotation is linked (via indirection) to description (descriptor) document
13:25:38 [trueg]
kidehen: TURTLE is basically a place-holder for what is decided in LDP
13:25:50 [kidehen]
deiu: WebID is already based on Linked Data principles.
13:25:57 [bblfish]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:25:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html bblfish
13:26:10 [bblfish]
kingsley the discussion is on the logs
13:26:34 [bblfish]
the restrictions were argued by TimBl because they make things simple
13:27:05 [kidehen]
trueg: Turtle is but one format for document content. It's my personally preferred format as I am sure you know, but that doesn't mean its the sole option. We shouldn't loose track of the fact that formats are negotiable.
13:27:34 [trueg]
kidehen: I think the idea is to make it the default which should be supported.
13:27:42 [kidehen]
bblfish: I know that hash URIs and Turtle are simple and mega pragmatic. You can make them a preference or default. But don't make them part of the definition of a WebID. That's not the way to go
13:27:52 [trueg]
kidehen: others can be supported and requested of course
13:28:20 [melvster]
kidehen: we had a proposal this morning based on recommendations from alex timbl and webr3 ... it unanimously passed from the people mentioned here
13:28:28 [deiu]
PROPOSAL: "A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE."
13:28:33 [kidehen]
bblfish: trueg: make the language loose don't force stuff on people. I make all my demos in Turtle, but I also make sure folks understand its a preference
13:28:46 [melvster]
the wording was: '"A WebID is a hash HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. You can GET an RDF model as TURTLE."'
13:28:47 [bblfish]
there is a CAN there
13:28:47 [SimpsonTP]
SimpsonTP has joined #webid
13:28:48 [deiu]
You _can_ get it in turtle
13:28:57 [deiu]
!= you _MUST_ get it in turtle
13:29:00 [trueg]
the wording can be improved for sure
13:29:08 [kidehen]
deiu: you don't GET an RDF model as Turtle. You GET a document comprised of Turtle content which is constrained by the RDF model
13:30:03 [bblfish]
we'll get back to the working on this in more detail when alex and nathan are back
13:30:04 [kidehen]
deiu: Turtle is the definition is suboptimal for something that's inherently loosely coupled based on the principles of the Web itself
13:30:06 [trueg]
kidehen: the poing is that the server needs to support turtle but may support any other format
13:30:17 [melvster]
s/working/wording
13:30:40 [deiu]
coming back to the test suit
13:30:45 [kidehen]
trueg: that's fine, but that isn't what's being presented based on current wording as pasted by deiu
13:31:02 [trueg]
kidehen: we will fix that later then
13:31:06 [bblfish]
Topic: Test suites
13:31:44 [deiu]
kidehen, the proposal I've pasted comes from this morning
13:32:32 [kidehen]
trueg: okay, don't have document content formats within the definition of a WebID. The tweak re. Linked Data is that the URI resolves to a profile document where the content is an RDF model graph with very specific entity relationship semantics
13:33:46 [kidehen]
trueg: deiu: when we conflate syntax and semantics we end up in the same place we've been for years. This is always about a denotation mechanism, content structure, and entity relationship semantics. None of this is format (syntax or notation) specific.
13:34:52 [kidehen]
betehess: I am in the U.S. just getting my morning sorted out.. Also, my points aren't news. They are all over the place, so I don't see why we are heading back to old problems re. definitions.
13:35:15 [deiu]
deiu: we should have a service similar to the W3C one where new applications can be tested
13:35:24 [rblin]
rblin has joined #webid
13:35:31 [deiu]
melvster argues that we need to decide exactly what we should test against
13:35:54 [kidehen]
betehess: ah! I didn't assume this was an actual meeting, so apologies if it is. I though this was a chat following the meeting etc.. As I said, I am behind due to time diff etc.
13:36:24 [deiu]
kidehen, we're at TPAC, meeting f2f (sorry for not answering all the time btw)
13:36:30 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #webid
13:36:43 [kidehen]
deiu: no problem
13:36:51 [kidehen]
deiu: will pick up whenever the meeting is over
13:36:55 [deiu]
ok
13:37:18 [deiu]
bblfish: HTTP error codes should at least be returned to the users/applications
13:37:56 [kidehen]
betehess: I didn't take it that way :-) It's fine. I am also re-syncing after Sandy etc..
13:38:15 [deiu]
... a turtle request on a resource that returns a 401 Unauthorized should also try to add details on the reason why it is unauthorized
13:38:50 [deiu]
... how should the 401 describe the reason why it happened
13:39:32 [deiu]
... example: could not get the profile / the profile is in the wrong format / no public key found / certificate out of date / etc.
13:42:08 [melvster]
kidehen: yes we have discussed this before, but got to a new consensus this morning .... we are discussing test suites now
13:42:39 [kidehen]
melvster: okay, we discuss later. It needs some tweaking :-0
13:44:50 [SimpsonTP]
SimpsonTP has joined #webid
13:45:12 [deiu]
SimpsonTP, yes please come
13:47:13 [melvster]
SimpsonTP: we are on the ground floor near the reception ... i think the room is called Terreaux 0
13:47:24 [deiu]
trueg askes what happens when users fail to authenticate using WebID
13:47:41 [SimpsonTP]
okay i'll sneak out of the AC meeting at coffee break
13:47:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webid
13:50:19 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webid
13:50:39 [deiu]
a 401 page is displayed by default in case the server sends a 401 response
13:51:00 [deiu]
... this page can be replaced by a different page with additional authentication options
13:52:54 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #webid
13:54:20 [deiu]
bblfish argues that all implementations should return HTTP codes corresponding to the outcome of the authentication process
13:55:51 [bblfish]
so the idea is to have one special resource on other webid implementation that only authenticates users that have a valid webid certificate
13:56:22 [bblfish]
that returns a 401 if not authenticated
14:00:30 [bblfish]
we can call WebID Authentication Resource
14:00:45 [bblfish]
W3C WebID Validator Agents
14:01:56 [deiu]
these agents will use the tests described in the above diagram to test WebID-enabled applications
14:02:21 [bblfish]
so part of the test should be that you change the key and log in again
14:02:34 [JonathanJ1]
JonathanJ1 has joined #webid
14:02:50 [bblfish]
one test is: public key missing in WebID profile
14:02:56 [trueg]
change key test with delay to give servers time to update caches
14:03:01 [bblfish]
one test is: SAN not derferenceable
14:04:05 [deiu]
also the list described at 14:39
14:05:54 [deiu]
bblfish argues about representing the state of an authenticated user, using turtle
14:05:59 [bblfish]
question: what do we return in case of success?
14:06:25 [deiu]
... "how do we express (using turtle) that a user has been authenticated?"
14:07:25 [deiu]
... EARL can be used to represent error instances
14:08:34 [trueg]
one success possibility is to simply return the entire profile
14:10:12 [bblfish]
Proposal: I proposal to wirte a simple validtor for a WebId Test resource
14:10:48 [bblfish]
of course
14:10:49 [bblfish]
:-)
14:10:57 [deiu]
+1
14:11:00 [jonathandray]
+1
14:11:04 [betehess]
+1
14:11:04 [gregory]
+1
14:11:05 [trueg]
+1
14:11:05 [philipp]
+1
14:11:09 [rblin]
+1
14:11:11 [melvster]
+1
14:11:12 [develD]
+1
14:11:17 [deiu]
this was an easy one :)
14:11:52 [bblfish]
And will list all services that pass the Verificiation service on webid.info as valid webid services
14:12:13 [deiu]
betehess, we're still trying to find a definition
14:12:21 [betehess]
will be back shortly
14:12:27 [betehess]
s/will be back shortly//
14:12:50 [trueg]
betehess: it is a random resource that WebID implementations expose to all verified WebIDs. It can be used by the WebID verification service to test parts of the implementattion.
14:13:25 [seo]
seo has joined #webid
14:14:34 [bblfish]
WebID Test Resource is a resource • that only returns a HTTP 200 code if the person has a .... to complicated definition
14:15:50 [bblfish]
WebID Test Resource is a resource that returns a 401 with an to-be-determined error message in Turtle if the agent was not authenticated using WebID and returns a 200 with a to-be-determined success message if the agent succcssfully authenticated
14:16:12 [bblfish]
Proposal: WebID Test Resource is a resource that returns a 401 with an to-be-determined error message in Turtle if the agent was not authenticated using WebID and returns a 200 with a to-be-determined success message if the agent succcssfully authenticated
14:16:51 [bblfish]
And not other access control restrictions exist on the server.
14:17:00 [bblfish]
s/the server/that resource/
14:17:08 [bblfish]
s/not/no/
14:17:11 [trueg]
+1
14:17:18 [deiu]
+1
14:17:20 [develD]
+1
14:17:32 [bblfish]
+1
14:17:33 [jonathandray]
+1
14:17:49 [gregory]
+1
14:17:50 [rblin]
+1
14:17:58 [philipp]
+1
14:18:17 [ttanaka2]
+1
14:19:02 [bblfish]
move on to another topic
14:19:47 [deiu]
same for us
14:23:54 [JonathanJ1]
JonathanJ1 has left #webid
14:25:15 [bblfish]
Alexandrer speaks about WebBox solving melvins a problem
14:25:21 [bblfish]
s/a //
14:26:00 [deiu]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:26:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html deiu
14:27:52 [bblfish]
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mvk/webbox-pim.pdf
14:27:53 [melvster]
https://github.com/danielsmith-eu/webbox/wiki
14:28:11 [rblin]
The paper : http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mvk/webbox-pim.pdf
14:28:48 [bblfish]
they are from southampton university
14:29:01 [bblfish]
alexbertails coined the term webbo
14:29:04 [bblfish]
webbox
14:57:11 [ttanaka2]
ttanaka2 has joined #webid
15:02:28 [SimpsonTP]
SimpsonTP has joined #webid
15:04:56 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #webid
15:06:47 [jin]
jin has joined #webid
15:08:02 [rblin]
romainblin.net/lifeshare-3.0
15:13:23 [betehess]
betehess has joined #webid
15:16:57 [bblfish]
Romain Blin presented his LifeShare network that uses rdflib.js
15:18:50 [SimpsonTP]
SimpsonTP has joined #webid
15:19:04 [wei]
wei has joined #webid
15:19:29 [bblfish]
Now Bart van Leeuwen http://www.linkedin.com/in/bartvanleeuwen76
15:19:37 [bblfish]
is showing firefighting and RDF
15:19:56 [bblfish]
Bart is a firefighter in Amsterdam
15:20:03 [betehess]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
15:20:41 [bblfish]
bart does not have a lot of time to make decisions ( 4minutes to get to fire location )
15:20:49 [bblfish]
bumpy roads
15:21:07 [bblfish]
and you can't wait in front of the burniong house reading your ipad
15:21:10 [bblfish]
a lot of data silos
15:21:25 [bblfish]
very small info they got in the old version
15:21:32 [bblfish]
s/small/little/
15:21:36 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
15:21:39 [bblfish]
a small tweet of information is all they have
15:21:42 [bblfish]
not enough
15:22:19 [bblfish]
so they re-wroed to the arc2 triple store and now to arqxequi?
15:22:48 [bblfish]
showing the new screen ( looks like google maps)
15:23:17 [bblfish]
they developed this in 3 months, used by 40 firefighters in holland
15:23:34 [bblfish]
now.
15:24:04 [bblfish]
Now they use a Jena Store XUL Runner, and Identity manager
15:24:46 [bblfish]
they would like to have webid so that the firedpartment can ask questions in that time that businesses would not want to give out to everyone
15:26:41 [bblfish]
here is a map of Amsterdam, with the Ann Frank institute. It uses info from different sources. They know it's a museum, and people live there
15:27:16 [bblfish]
so they were able to publish where they are going
15:28:28 [bblfish]
they would also like to show where it is going, but they would like the information to be published but only visible to some people. So WebID could be useful here too.
15:29:21 [bblfish]
http://semanticweb.com/webcast-fighting-fire-with-linked-data-2_b17051
15:32:49 [deiu]
http://www.slideshare.net/semanticfire/0080-netage-sanfranciscopdf
15:35:16 [bblfish]
Alex Bertails: asking for the use cases for WebID in Bart's talk to see how Access control rules fit in
15:35:48 [bblfish]
Bart: GMS this info goes into the incident manager
15:35:56 [deiu]
GMS is the central dispatch system which initiates the incident
15:36:28 [bblfish]
Incident Manager uses SPARQL as Rules
15:36:33 [deiu]
they use SPARQL rules to manage incidents
15:36:51 [deiu]
Agents can be registered with the Incident Manager
15:36:52 [bblfish]
an agent is registered with a SPARQL query
15:37:20 [deiu]
the same agent pulls info from external sources (the building on fire) and updates the incident data
15:37:35 [bblfish]
so most of the data is public they are using
15:37:50 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
15:37:53 [deiu]
incident data can be a list of chemicals that are found in the house that is on fire
15:37:53 [bblfish]
But the firegighters would like to be access confidential information
15:38:07 [bblfish]
and they like WebID because it is easy to use
15:38:20 [bblfish]
and does not require complex certification procedures
15:43:21 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
15:45:43 [bblfish]
all telemetry in the fireftrucks should be linked data
15:46:08 [bblfish]
they had a huge chemical fire in the netherlands, which created a huge environmental disaster
15:46:58 [bblfish]
had they had real telemetry they could have worked out how to deal with it much better.
15:47:55 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
15:51:52 [bblfish]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:51:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html bblfish
15:52:15 [bblfish]
q?
15:53:14 [bblfish]
zigby
15:53:21 [bblfish]
is used in smoke detectors
15:54:49 [gregory]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZigBee
15:59:57 [shh]
shh has joined #webid
16:06:29 [betehess]
bblfish discussing the advantages of having a special DN in the certificates
16:06:54 [betehess]
doing that, the server could ask for only "valid" webid certificates
16:07:10 [betehess]
bblfish: this would prevent the user to provide non-valid certificates
16:07:14 [deiu]
q+
16:07:14 [betehess]
... helps selection
16:08:00 [betehess]
deiu: I argued on ML we should to avoid the elements that could be usefull for companies
16:08:28 [betehess]
... because they are part of the pop-up windows
16:08:33 [betehess]
... it's vital for some companies
16:08:49 [betehess]
... and they could want to use some of them for themselves
16:09:24 [betehess]
... so I'd advise to avoid those
16:09:33 [betehess]
... I'm pasting the link to this email listing all these elements
16:09:41 [deiu]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Oct/0259.html
16:10:09 [betehess]
bblfish: there is service trying to assess the quality of the TLS endpoints
16:10:17 [betehess]
... they verify the protocol
16:10:40 [betehess]
... I will send an email with a link (can't remember right now)
16:11:11 [betehess]
... anyway, we don't want to use "w3c" here
16:13:28 [betehess]
[some discussion happening on cn and dn in certificates]
16:14:30 [betehess]
[now checking what works in browsers]
16:16:24 [betehess]
looks like OU, O, ST, and C are not vital
16:16:55 [betehess]
could be an issue to mess with the CNs for "issued by" and "issued for"
16:17:42 [betehess]
bblfish: I want to focus on the CN of the issuer
16:18:13 [betehess]
... as the people would only want to tweak their "issued for" CN
16:18:46 [betehess]
deiu: we may have a tracability issue
16:20:30 [betehess]
all: the UI sucks, especially on Linux, looks better on Windows
16:21:01 [bblfish]
https://localhost:8443/srv/certgen
16:21:45 [betehess]
s| https://localhost:8443/srv/certgen||
16:22:13 [bblfish]
172.19.2.24
16:22:22 [betehess]
s|172.19.2.24||
16:22:26 [webr3]
re earlier proposal "WebID Test Resource is a resource that returns a 401.." Please refine this to be an HTTP GET request with the appropriate Accept headers, and without any conditional headers (If-*).
16:23:24 [bblfish]
https://172.19.2.24:8443/srv/certgen
16:24:11 [betehess]
s|https://172.19.2.24:8443/srv/certgen||
16:26:05 [webr3]
general note: I'm very wary about needing to do anything that involves anything in certificates other than specifying a SAN, the things your discussing may be neat, but they'd make me want to cry if mentioned anywhere in the web spec itself
16:26:59 [SimpsonTP]
webr3, I think I'm with you on that one
16:28:45 [webr3]
s|your|you're|
16:32:31 [betehess]
betehess: maybe the requirement on the CN could be a SHOULD and not a MUST
16:32:39 [betehess]
bblfish: this could work
16:33:32 [betehess]
deiu: what about DC (Domain Component)
16:33:40 [betehess]
... as we don't use the chain of trust
16:34:21 [betehess]
SimpsonTP: in active directory, they already use that
16:35:01 [betehess]
bblfish: you can't use wildcards, you need to use a specific string
16:35:34 [mischat]
mischat has joined #webid
16:36:26 [betehess]
betehess: can we use any attribute, like LDAP?
16:36:32 [betehess]
deiu: that was my question
16:39:01 [betehess]
SimpsonTP: if this is possible, I'd be ok with that, but I would strongly be opposed to using commonly used fileds
16:39:07 [betehess]
s/fileds/fields/
16:39:30 [betehess]
... it all comes up to support in browsers
16:39:53 [betehess]
https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Certificate_System/8.1/html/Deploy_and_Install_Guide/usering-cert-extensions.html
16:39:54 [webr3]
reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.509#Architectural_weaknesses especially "Implementation Issues" section ( DNs lack canonicalization and i18n etc)
16:40:56 [webr3]
request: can somebody point me to why we'd want a special DN in the certs, I've missed a thread somewhere
16:41:28 [betehess]
webr3: because we want the user to be asked for valid webid certificates
16:41:30 [SimpsonTP]
webr3, to limit the options of certs shown to the user in the browser
16:41:51 [betehess]
one way to do it is to restrict on some fields
16:42:00 [webr3]
ahh is this the CN=WebID,O=empty-set-char thread?
16:42:07 [betehess]
hence the discussion on what fields, and what values
16:42:10 [betehess]
webr3, yes
16:42:41 [shh]
shh has left #webid
16:43:35 [webr3]
I'd want that outside of certs to be honest, if FB issue me a cert with the hope I'll use it everywhere, I want to tell my browser to only use it on FB (And maybe one or two other sites) - that can't be in the cert, as it's subject to change over time, and for each person's preference
16:49:32 [betehess]
we're trying to re-assess the issue
16:49:44 [betehess]
do people have that many certificates to choose from?
16:50:28 [betehess]
Ben Laurie said "I don't want to use webid because of the case there would be too many certificates"
16:50:30 [webr3]
could well do
16:50:37 [betehess]
trueg: it's a non issue
16:50:49 [webr3]
mini proposal: consider using issuerAltName
16:50:51 [betehess]
... it's an theoritical issue
16:50:54 [webr3]
*optionally*
16:51:27 [betehess]
looks like people are pushing for just resolving this as being a non-issue
16:51:38 [betehess]
(all but bblfish so far)
16:53:29 [webr3]
+1 to non issue for what it's worth, interesting non critical work, but non issue. If the issuer wants to limit usage of the certificate, then issuerAltNAme could be used and point ot LD which ahs more details ont he issuer, and the suggested cert usage
16:55:26 [betehess]
betehess: I'm proposing bblfish to try the extension fields in all browsers to make his case, at least on the technical level
16:55:36 [deiu]
+1 for that
16:55:54 [betehess]
... in the meantime, the group is still asking henry to declare this is a non-issue
16:56:07 [betehess]
... and go back to ben laurie with the decision of this group
16:56:59 [betehess]
trueg: also, this is even a bigger problem because of UI issues
16:57:36 [betehess]
PROPOSAL: approve for the above
16:57:39 [betehess]
+1
16:57:46 [deiu]
+1
16:57:49 [melvster]
+1
16:57:51 [gregory]
+1
16:57:55 [trueg]
+1
16:58:04 [betehess]
more explicitly: we make this a non-issue
16:58:04 [ttanaka2]
+1
16:58:07 [jonathandray]
+1
16:58:08 [SimpsonTP]
+1
16:58:17 [sangrae]
+1
16:58:24 [jin]
+1
16:59:47 [webr3]
+1 to non-issue
17:02:32 [webr3]
http://markmail.org/message/b2nfaspp3uqb5usz#query:+page:1+mid:urbvh4bnmqdftayn+state:results/O=FOAF+SSL/CN=TDB
17:02:32 [webr3]
This will never happen because no CA will ever let itself be under the
17:02:32 [webr3]
hierarchy of a pseudo-CA like we're discussing. It would also make the
17:02:32 [webr3]
normal PKI verification completely void.
17:02:45 [webr3]
** http://markmail.org/message/b2nfaspp3uqb5usz#query:+page:1+mid:urbvh4bnmqdftayn+state:results
17:02:59 [webr3]
re: /O=FOAF+SSL/CN=TDB - from Bruno back in 2010 when discussed
17:04:04 [webr3]
seeAlso: http://markmail.org/message/qeslafjpozshnpni
17:32:57 [timbl]
timbl has joined #webid
18:46:11 [fwagner]
fwagner has joined #webid
19:12:57 [kidehen_]
kidehen_ has joined #webid
20:30:00 [fwagner]
fwagner has left #webid
20:30:03 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #webid
20:30:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webid
20:46:02 [develD]
develD has joined #webid
20:50:08 [trueg]
trueg has joined #webid
20:50:28 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #webid
21:17:25 [SimpsonTP]
SimpsonTP has joined #webid
21:22:01 [deiu]
deiu has joined #webid
21:30:06 [betehess]
betehess has joined #webid
21:51:54 [gregory]
gregory has joined #webid
21:57:24 [bblfish]
bblfish has joined #webid
22:02:10 [bblfish]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:02:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html bblfish
22:20:41 [deiu]
Meeting: TPAC 2012 - WebID meeting
22:20:47 [deiu]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:20:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webid-minutes.html deiu