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

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:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>