Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] Tagging WWW data to build decentralized systems

Expand Messages
  • Robin Upton
    ... Yes ... This is a very good point, Lucas. How about the following modification? Combine another URI (just to work as an identifier) with the URI: LOOK
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 23, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On 06/24/2010 03:36 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
      > But one thing you could do is tweet it, and that would work until the
      > tweet was flushed out of the update stream?
      >
      Yes
      > What if the owner of the encryption key signed that URI for some other
      > reason? It seems like merely signing the URI only indicates a LOOK
      > assertion when everybody who signs anything buys into the LOOK
      > protocol.
      >
      This is a very good point, Lucas. How about the following modification?
      Combine another URI (just to work as an identifier) with the URI:

      LOOK uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" meaning="http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner" key="XYZ Key"
      value="[signed "meaning=http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner uri=http://twitter.com/gonze%5d"]

      This complicates it somewhat, but
      i) Removes the possibility that keyholders had signed that for some
      other purpose,
      ii) Allows keyholders to add their own meanings.
      i.e. I could have a "Vote on this" page, inviting people to submit a
      LOOK in a textarea,
      either http://mysite.com/yeah or http://mysite.com/nay etc.

      Robin
    • Robin Upton
      ... Yes ... Very good point. How about this modification. Add a URI to the mix, e.g. ... Although adding complexity, it would: 1) Stop cut-and-paste creation
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 23, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 06/24/2010 03:36 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
        > But one thing you could do is tweet it, and that would work until the
        > tweet was flushed out of the update stream?
        >
        Yes
        >> [LOOK uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" key="XYZ Key" value="[signed
        >> http://twitter.com/gonze%5d"]
        >>
        > What if the owner of the encryption key signed that URI for some other
        > reason? It seems like merely signing the URI only indicates a LOOK
        > assertion when everybody who signs anything buys into the LOOK
        > protocol.
        >
        Very good point.
        How about this modification. Add a URI to the mix, e.g.
        > [LOOK meaning="http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner" uri="http://twitter.com/gonze" key="XYZ Key" value="[signed
        > (meaning="http://f2f.name/LOOK/owner" uri="http://twitter.com/gonze") ]"]
        >
        Although adding complexity, it would:
        1) Stop cut-and-paste creation of other people's LOOKs,
        2) Allow people a URI to express what they mean
        So publishing a vote, people could submit

        [LOOK meaning="http://yoursite.com/etc/YEAH" uri="http://yousite.com/etc/votepage.html" ]
        [LOOK meaning="http://yoursite.com/etc/NAY" uri="http://yousite.com/etc/votepage.html" ]

        Robin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.