How do other people feel about making axschema part of AX/OpenID?

Op 11 dec 2009, om 17:42 heeft Santosh Rajan het volgende geschreven:

> Ah, in any case I agree with the idea that AXSchema should be part of OpenID, 
> and i will go a little further and suggest, that discovery of all URI's 
> supported by OpenID should also be part of OpenID. :-)
> 
> I also think that is why a consistent data model is in order.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Chris Obdam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Earlier we discussed making AXSchema part of OpenID. It was on the 
> mailinglist, finding isn't easy :-)
> As far as I know the discussion hasn't finished yet.
> 
> Op 11 dec 2009, om 16:00 heeft Santosh Rajan het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> You said this subject has been touched before. Do you have a link i can 
>> read? I am NOT yet a great fan of semweb or foaf+ssl yet. (Sorry Peter 
>> Williams you haven't convinced me yet, but you are a great guy and I really 
>> miss you at the OpenID forums).
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Santosh
>> 
>> 
>> I still feel we can have a Data Model with synchronous signatures.
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Chris Obdam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is a subject which has been touched before. First question is: should 
>> OpenID incorporate a datamodel.
>> 
>> Yes, I think. RP need more clearity on this matter.
>> 
>> 
>> Op 10 dec 2009, om 16:37 heeft Santosh Rajan het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> 
>>> As usual I am going to digress a bit here. As far as I can see, the problem 
>>> with OpenID is that it does NOT have a "data model".
>>> 
>>> When we look at a data model, we don't really need to worry about the 
>>> serialization format. It could be anything, POST message key values, JSON, 
>>> RDF or Atom. The important thing is that we need a data model, and a 
>>> consistent one at that, through out the OpenID protocol process.
>>> 
>>> Once we have a proper data model in place, answering all these "discovery" 
>>> and "AX" questions will be trivial.
>>> 
>>> One more point about the trust issue. I am all for synchronous signatures 
>>> rather than asynchronous.
>>> 
>>> I am working on this. But this is not something I can do alone. Any 
>>> collaboration will be appreciated. And all work will be done under the 
>>> OpenID IPR.
>>> 
>>> Thanks all,
>>> Santosh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2009/12/10 Nat <[email protected]>
>>> This is a CX use case. In CX, user consent is captured in a signed document 
>>> called contract together with what gets sent under what circumstances. The 
>>> contract gets a unique URL to identity it and one can use that to point to 
>>> the collection of data as well. 
>>> 
>>> The WG is up and running so there is no need to wait.  
>>> 
>>> =...@tokyo via iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 2009/12/10, at 12:19, Allen Tom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Automatically sharing profile/avatar pic (with user consent) definitely 
>>>> adds a lot of value to both users and RPs, and profile pic was one of the 
>>>> most frequently requested attributes that we heard from potential RPs.
>>>> 
>>>> The Yahoo OP currently shares the URL to the user’s Yahoo Profile pic, 
>>>> however, the pic does not automatically get updated when the user updates 
>>>> their Yahoo Profile pic.
>>>> 
>>>> One of the things that I’d like to clarify in AX 1.1 is whether or not RPs 
>>>> should be able to deep link directly to the profile pic, or if they’re 
>>>> expected to download and cache it themselves. Also, if RPs are able to 
>>>> deep link to the profile pic, then we should also define whether or not 
>>>> the content of the URL be updated when the user updates their pic.
>>>> 
>>>> Allen
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/9/09 5:17 AM, "Jonathan Coffman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Avatars would definitely be huge. I can't tell you how frustrating it is 
>>>> as a user to update my avatar on all of the hundreds of sites I may 
>>>> encounter that require login.
>>>> 
>>>> Professionally, I've run into problems when bringing up Gravatar as a 
>>>> potential option... but again, that sets the bar so high that users are 
>>>> pretty unlikely to even go through that process.
>>>> 
>>>> Jonathan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 9, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Chris Messina wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1. I think those are the basic profile building blocks for social 
>>>> software. The avatar is something we particularly need for openid. 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone 2G
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 22:06, John Panzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> For my use cases, the important things are, unscientifically,
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Display name
>>>> 2. Avatar / photo
>>>> 3. Preferred link to human-readable online presence -- profile, blog, 
>>>> whatever strikes their fancy.  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:38 PM, David Recordon < 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm sure that the data is wildly out of date, but at the time the SREG
>>>>  fields ( 
>>>> <http://openid.net/specs/openid-simple-registration-extension-1_0.html#response_format>
>>>>  
>>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-simple-registration-extension-1_0.html#response_format)
>>>>  were based on looking at what a few hundred different sites were
>>>>  asking for.
>>>>  
>>>>  I unscientifically think that the extremely common stuff is:
>>>>   - Name
>>>>   - Avatar / photo
>>>>   - Email address
>>>>  
>>>>  Scientifically, we should actually put some effort into looking at
>>>>  sign in pages again. :)
>>>>  
>>>> --David
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Jonathan Coffman
>>>>  < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>  > Out of curiosity, beyond the email discussion below what are the primary
>>>>  > metadata needs around the other major (PoCo) fields?
>>>>  > Speaking to the use-cases I work off of here at PBS, I'm primarily 
>>>> concerned
>>>>  > about emails being verified (and a signup date is also useful) and am 
>>>> most
>>>>  > inclined to trust the OP (especially if it were a white-listed or 
>>>> otherwise
>>>>  > vetted iDP).
>>>>  > Jonathan
>>>>  >
>>>>  > On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Is it worth looking at how Facebook handles the passing of profile 
>>>> data? Or
>>>>  > is their architecture/use case different?
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  <http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Users.getInfo> 
>>>> http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Users.getInfo
>>>>  > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Breno de Medeiros < 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:01 AM, John Panzer < 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>  >> > For "one-time" URLs, you'd probably want to allow for retries for a
>>>>  >> > short
>>>>  >> > period (or just allow it to be accessed for say 5m) which would have
>>>>  >> > approximately the same level of protection.
>>>>  >> > You could also imagine long-lived capabilities along the lines of 
>>>> OAuth
>>>>  >> > tokens that allow RPs to repeatedly refresh the data as needed.  
>>>> (Better
>>>>  >> > of
>>>>  >> > course if they can subscribe to changes, but that's an implementation
>>>>  >> > detail
>>>>  >> > and definitely a separate spec.)
>>>>  >> > Given that AX already supports requesting URL-valued data (e.g., 
>>>> profile
>>>>  >> > photos) I think this just comes down to defining a fairly complicated
>>>>  >> > data
>>>>  >> > type for AX and passing a URL around.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> A more lightweight alternative is to adopt an 'artifact' mode where
>>>>  >> most of the OpenID assertion (request and response) can be passed in
>>>>  >> the backchannel. That is a bit more difficult to implement but easier
>>>>  >> to spec (because the existing URLs can be used) and more general
>>>>  >> (compacts all extensions, not only AX).
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> > --
>>>>  >> > John Panzer / Google
>>>>  >> >  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] /  
>>>> <http://abstractioneer.org> abstractioneer.org <http://abstractioneer.org> 
>>>>  / @jpanzer
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Peter Watkins < 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>  >> >>
>>>>  >> >> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:32:12AM -0800, John Panzer wrote:
>>>>  >> >>
>>>>  >> >> > provide to RPs.  If you send an endpoint URL to the RP instead of 
>>>> the
>>>>  >> >> > information itself, the RP can then retrieve it via a backchannel
>>>>  >> >> > (and
>>>>  >> >> > cache
>>>>  >> >> > it).  If you have private data, use a capability URL with a token
>>>>  >> >> > that
>>>>  >> >> > allows read-only access.
>>>>  >> >>
>>>>  >> >> Exactly. OpenID requests and responses are very chatty, and 
>>>> backchannel
>>>>  >> >> URLs could be an easy way to get around the 2k GET limit (the cost 
>>>> of
>>>>  >> >> course being additional time needed to make the additional HTTP
>>>>  >> >> requests).
>>>>  >> >>
>>>>  >> >> I don't see any reason for backchannel URLs to be requested multiple
>>>>  >> >> times,
>>>>  >> >> so in addition to a request or response using strongly random 
>>>> nonces in
>>>>  >> >> the backchannel URLs, the backchannel URLs should be very 
>>>> short-lived,
>>>>  >> >> probably each side "SHOULD" allow a URL to be requested only once, 
>>>> and
>>>>  >> >> throw a 403/404 for subsequent requests.
>>>>  >> >>
>>>>  >> >> Is there any draft of AX using backchannel URLs?
>>>>  >> >>
>>>>  >> >> -Peter
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>  >> > specs mailing list
>>>>  >> >  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>>>>  >> >  <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> 
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >> >
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> --
>>>>  >> --Breno
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
>>>>  >> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
>>>>  >> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
>>>>  >> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
>>>>  >> _______________________________________________
>>>>  >> specs mailing list
>>>>  >>  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>>>>  >>  <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> 
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  > --
>>>>  > Chris Messina
>>>>  > Open Web Advocate
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Personal:  <http://factoryjoe.com> http://factoryjoe.com
>>>>  > Follow me on Twitter:  <http://twitter.com/chrismessina> 
>>>> http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Citizen Agency:  <http://citizenagency.com> http://citizenagency.com
>>>>  > Diso Project:  <http://diso-project.org> http://diso-project.org
>>>>  > OpenID Foundation:  <http://openid.net> http://openid.net
>>>>  >
>>>>  > This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>>>  > _______________________________________________
>>>>  > specs mailing list
>>>>  >  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>>>>  >  <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> 
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  > _______________________________________________
>>>>  > specs mailing list
>>>>  >  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>>>>  >  <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> 
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  specs mailing list
>>>>   <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>>>>   <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs> 
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> specs mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> specs mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> specs mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> specs mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hi.im/santosh
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to