Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Thu, 10 October 2013 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4144021F99F7 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EXgDGgLwFrks for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F79E21F999C for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q8so2433942lbi.39 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/pZXwBIiM3GsaEk0PU6/Wrevw3cvnpO3mf6TYYXm35w=; b=Kle5pDpk82FAjeFf+WNj4+JKbLpvCEUUrdoIWr/cdOh0h2qIrISWPfcnMxJWZTChBz i1pO/L2+QAz863m2xvHPTEWS8usf/MuQshSADi76vWUXUzmCnWev+OBiPMCI7GhFR1GY c8ltjD6uXxZ3ZJMC1cIZkYwsRget11E0Ozpqfa2i6jkLHbBz5SoQYUG3w9Tu29+za+eP u/eyPAiWqMAk+IA0xybZsj3zxAJ7XxBfh0Vs4UvM7bh3/8XdxojD54i0s5Cnjb7AXD6G R5C6x/nRTK8qumCOrOZoYMIwEv+4HRaC/NeYq8tsBSqHthLCKf9lPyQ/K3OvK4NCt85u ZfpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.158.225 with SMTP id wx1mr2814045lbb.37.1381428833127; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.159.233 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJqAn3wZ7JAjjsgOSxA6SWOzerftzJVwEFYxx+xpC_R1+vX8Aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <em8fca55dc-a3ff-4231-8218-6c2221838850@sydney> <CAKaEYh+n4LCJXevsJ_Y6dc5YnvH75kyQDXVtRV21RbTabCE=Dg@mail.gmail.com> <ebdbafac-19b7-46dc-909e-c2d2b5734574@email.android.com> <CAJqAn3wws1SQvdLSF0bp0DNboeX3gLAn8C2SOKp2KT9RxcOmXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKaEYh+K-sCu+h=iCeqde=HGjGPaAD52m-WRauvQ+jsOuWGVxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqAn3wZ7JAjjsgOSxA6SWOzerftzJVwEFYxx+xpC_R1+vX8Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:13:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+m60gxG4egjbsioRz_ga69vUDgvgE+MQaTVviSCE6O6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c34932e1904504e866f6d5
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties
X-BeenThere: webfinger@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area <webfinger.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webfinger>
List-Post: <mailto:webfinger@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:16:08 -0000

On 10 October 2013 20:03, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 October 2013 19:48, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There irony here is that WebFinger itself was created to solve the
>>> problem of resolving an otherwise unresolvable URI (originally mailto and
>>> later acct URIs).  URNs have the same problem, and since they have no
>>> well-defined host, you can't even use WebFinger to resolve them.  I know
>>> there have been some efforts to define URN resolution (rfc2483 et al), but
>>> as far as I know none are very well adopted.  Using HTTP URIs makes the
>>> most sense to me.
>>>
>>> But do we really need yet another registry of properties, the vast
>>> majority of which I'm sure have been defined in a dozen other places?  Is
>>> there a reason why reusing one of these existing namespaces would not work?
>>>  (and if something WebFinger specific really is desirable, then we can
>>> continue using webfinger.net, which has already been used for
>>> http://webfinger.net/rel/avatar/ and
>>> http://webfinger.net/rel/profile-page/.  That was kind of the idea of
>>> running it as a static site out of the GitHub "webfinger" org; it's very
>>> easy to give others access to everything.  That's what we've done with
>>> activitystrea.ms for several years now)
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Yes, that's nice but Id suggest it's better to put all the terms in one
>> single file to reduce multiple HTTP GETs and maintenance.
>>
>
> multiple GETs by whom?  I suspect that these will typically resolve to
> human readable descriptions of the properties... I don't imagine they'd be
> automatically fetched by anything/anyone.  We could of course embed some
> machine readable version of the property in the pages, but even then I'm
> not exactly sure what the use-case would be.  That said, I don't actually
> have strong feelings on this.
>
>
>>
>> Also I forgot to mention VCard which also covers a lot of terms needed.
>>
>
> yep, though I'm not sure if they have URI equivalents for property names.
>  There is a URN for the XML namespace (urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:vcard-4.0),
> but that's gets us back to where we started.
>

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vcard-rdf-20130924/


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>wrote;wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, any URI can be used to identify a property. However, there has to
>>>> be some agreed scheme and structure for things defined in the IETF. The
>>>> point of the suggestion was to specify that.
>>>>
>>>> We could use HTTP, but I've never seen that scheme used in IETF
>>>> documents for this type of thing. I've seen URNs, though.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Sun Oct 06 09:19:42 EDT 2013
>>>> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
>>>> *Cc:* webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger
>>>> Properties
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 October 2013 03:22, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you know, properties (both link and subject-specific properties)
>>>>> are identified via a URI.  For applications that are defined outside the
>>>>> IETF, those organizations are able to define any URI they wish to use.  For
>>>>> any we might define within the IETF, however, we need something.
>>>>>
>>>>> In anticipation of having such a need, I think we should create a
>>>>> document along the lines of RFC 6755 for WebFinger.  Specifically, we would
>>>>> define a URN sub-namespace as:
>>>>>
>>>>>    urn:ietf:params:webfinger
>>>>>
>>>>> One such potentially-useful subject-specific properties are "name",
>>>>> which would be the the subject's name intended for human consumption.  If
>>>>> you've queried my WebFinger server, you would know I currently advertise my
>>>>> name in English and Chinese.  For the "default" name, the URN might be:
>>>>>
>>>>>    urn:ietf:params:webfinger:name
>>>>>
>>>>> For language-specific variants, it might be:
>>>>>
>>>>>     urn:ietf:params:webfinger:name:zh-CN
>>>>>
>>>>> Defining the various properties and their meaning is an exercise for
>>>>> another day, but I hope you see the value in defining the URN sub-namespace.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cant this be done using traditional HTTP keys.  The advantage being
>>>> that they can be systematically dereferenced using http GET, rather than
>>>> having to look it up in a central registry in a non machine readable way.
>>>> This is what has been going on for 10+ years, with FOAF, schema.org,
>>>> open graph protocol and others.  Have I missed something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> webfinger mailing list
>>>>> webfinger@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> webfinger mailing list
>>>> webfinger@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>