Re: [foaf-dev] FOAF 1.0 Planning Doc
Le 13 juin 2012 à 22:20, Ed - 0x1b, Inc. a écrit :
>> Vcard "parameters types" approach  is to define several types to describe your resource, so
regarding Kjetl's "foaf:personal_phone" property, this can be done by combining two classes (v:Home
and v:Tel in the vcard example).
>> Supporting this logic, classes such as foaf:Personal or foaf:Private could be added to avoid creating
countless personal_skypeID, personal_mbox , etc
>> Regarding all the protocol/brand specific properties ("skypeID", "openID", "jabberID"), one should
be able to re-use another RDF Class, and just add it to its "foaf:OnlineAccount" or "foaf:ContactMedium"
resource to describe it more precisely.
> Would this be handled differently if it were a direct claim to an
> encryption based identity (aka WebID) - I would think the lack of
> inter-mediation (no CA) make "foaf:OnlineAccount" a contradiction?
> ContactMedium doesn't really speak to the making of such an assertion
> in my mind, but would that be the best place to put a WebID RDF
In the WebID world, your WebID == your URI,
you just add in your FOAF file a cert:RSAPublicKey linked by a cert:key from your foaf:Person URI
So your plain old URI becomes a verifiable, "accountable" URI, so all the things asserted can be verified
using a TLS handshake.
OnlineAccount are most of the time URLs to a public profile page (twitter, fb)
So linking to them from your WebID-enabled URI just validate your claim it's your profile.
With WebID becoming mainstream, we can have online services provide linked data such as "here's the WebID