[apps-discuss] R: Webfinger: acct "link relation"

[Goix Laurent Walter <[e-mail]>]

Well, generalizing could be a more flexible approach. Especially if uri schemes evolve over time to identify users (could be http, tel, etc). I guess the semantics here is o refer to yet another identity of that individual.

"seealso" may fit, although it is quite vague semantically and do not specifically ensure that the specific resource is actually the same individual but another account.

The "related" relation link (defined in atom [1] ) may also fit and has more or less the same meaning whilst being already formally assigned.
In alternative one could borrow from xfn concepts [2] and use "me" to clearly state that this resource is another pointer to "myself"...

Just my 2 cents to stimulate the discussion here
walter

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.7.2
[2] http://gmpg.org/xfn/11
Da: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di Paul E. Jones
Inviato: mercoledì 14 marzo 2012 6.57
A: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Oggetto: [apps-discuss] Webfinger: acct "link relation"

Folks,

In the latest Webfinger draft, we introduced a "acct" link relation named "acct" (see Section 6).  The intent with that link relation was to allow for one to inform a webfinger client that a user's account information may be retrieved elsewhere.  I believe this will be important, since a user might have more than one account and this might serve as a means of associating them.  Certainly, it would be a way of retrieving information from those other accounts automatically.

Perhaps calling the new link relation "acct" is too restrictive, though.  If one used Webfinger to query other kinds of information other than a user's account, there may still be a need/desire to refer the Webfinger client to other resources.

What do you think about changing this section such that the link relation is renamed to "seealso"?  This would still be useful when querying an acct URI, but would also be useful when querying any URI since it  is more generic.

Do note that "seealso" would be different than the "alternate" link relation.  It would not refer to alternative information, but would refer to supplemental information.  In practice, the supplemental information may be the more informative since the bulk of the information related to a user might be held under a different account.

Your thoughts?

Paul



Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

[cid:[e-mail]]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.