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

[Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

On 11 October 2013 00:34, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Will,
>
> The reason is to have one set of identifiers that people can agree to
> use.  There are two types of identifiers, too:
>     * Link relations types
>     * Properties
>
> As you point out, there are several link relations already defined.  I've
> cataloged some of them:
> http://www.packetizer.com/webfinger/link_relations.html
>
> Some that are interesting to me did not exist,  so I made up values.
>
> There are also properties, and I've not seen any described formally
> anywhere.  I've defined a ones I find useful:
> http://www.packetizer.com/webfinger/properties.html
>

Regarding name, just from the top of my head (I didnt include PoCo,
OpenSocial, PIM, DOAP, but you could search for them)

http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_name
https://schema.org/name
http://graph.facebook.com/schema/user#name
http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/#d4e1731

Remember that link relations predate webfinger by over 5 years.  It's often
better to reuse than to reinvent.


>
> There are more defined out there, I'm sure.  And it's perfectly OK for
> applications to define whatever they want.
>
> However, there are a few that I think really should be defined by the
> IETF.  If we don't do that, then we at least need to have an informal
> agreement on, for example, how to get a person's name.  Otherwise, some
> link relation types or property identifiers are likely to get defined with
> 10 different identifiers, yet carry the same semantics.
>
> Paul
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Will Norris" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Melvin Carvalho" <[e-mail]>; "webfinger" <
> [e-mail]>
> Sent: 10/10/2013 1:48:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties
>
>  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)
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]>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 <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Sun Oct 06 09:19:42 EDT 2013
>> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* webfinger <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Registration of a URN for WebFinger Properties
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 October 2013 03:22, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webfinger mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>>
>>
>