Sebastian added the pingback relation to the ontology, and it is working now.
I added a Pingback page to the esw wiki http://esw.w3.org/Pingback I mention a couple of issues we should look into perhaps. Henry Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ On 15 Apr 2010, at 22:36, Story Henry wrote: > Hi, > > I often get asked how one solve the friend request problem on open social > networks that use foaf in the hyperdata way. > > On the closed social networks when you want to make a friend, you send them a > request which they can accept or refuse. It is easy to set up, because all > the information is located in the same database, owned by the same company. > In a distributed social foaf network anyone can link to you, from anywhere, > and your acceptance can be expressed most clearly by linking back. The > problem is: you need to find out when someone is linking to you. > > > So then the problem is how does one notify people that one is linking to > them. Here are the solutions in order of simplicity. > > 0. Search engine solution > ------------------------- > > Wait for a search engine to index the web, then ask the search engine which > people are linking to you. > > Problems: > > - This will tend to be a bit slow, as a search engine optimised to search > the whole web will need to be notified first, even if this is only of minor > interest to them > - It makes the search engine a core part of the communication between two > individuals, taking on the role of the central database in closed social > networks > - It will not work when people deploy foaf+ssl profiles, where they access > control who can see their friends. Search engines will not have access to > that information, and so will not be able to index it. > > 1. HTTP Referer Header > ---------------------- > > The absolute simplest solution would be just to use the mis-spelled HTTP > Referer Header, that was designed to do this job. In a normal HTTP request > the location from which the requested URL was found can be placed in the > header of the request. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referrer > > The server receiving the request and serving your foaf profile, can then > find the answer to the referrer in the web server logs. > > Perhaps that is all that is needed! When you make a friend request, do the > following: > > 1. add the friend to your foaf profile > > <http://bblfish.net/#hjs> foaf:knows > <http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen#this> . > > 2. Then just do a GET on their Web ID with the Referrer header set to your > Web Id. They will then find in their apache logs, something like this: > > 93.84.41.131 - - [31/Dec/2008:02:36:54 -0600] "GET /dataspace/person/kidehen > HTTP/1.1" 200 19924 "http://bblfish.net/"; "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows > NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5" > > This can then be analysed using incredibly simple scripts such (as described > in [1] for example) > > 3. The server could then just verify that information by > > a. doing a GET on the Referer URL to find out if indeed it is linking to the > users WebId > b. do some basic trust analysis (is this WebId known by any of my friends?), > in order to rank it before presenting it to the user > > The nice thing about the above method is that it will work even when the > initial linker's server does not have a Ping service for WebIDs. If the pages > linking are in html with RDFa most browsers will send the referrer field. > > There is indeed a Wikipedia entry for this: it is called Refback. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refback > > Exactly why Refback is more prone to spam than the ping back or linkback > solution is still a bit of a mystery to me. > > 2. Referer with foaf+ssl > ------------------------ > > In any case the SPAM problem can be reduced by using foaf+ssl [2]. If the > WebId is an https WebId - which it really should be! - then the requestor > will authentify himself, at least on the protected portion of the foaf > profile. So there are the following types of people who could be making the > request on your WebId. > > P1. the person making the friend request > > Here their WebId and the referer field will match. > (this can be useful, as this should be the first request you will receive - > a person making a friend request, should at least test the link!) > > P2. A friend of the person making the friend request > > Perhaps a friend of P1 goes to his page, comes across your WebId, clicks on > it to find out more, and authentifies himself on your page. If P2 is a friend > of yours too, then your service would have something somewhat similar to a > LinkedIn introduction! > > P3. Just someone on the web, a crawler... > > Then you know that he is making his friendship claim public. :-) > > The above seems to be just some of the interesting information one could > get > from the analysing the Referer field logs. > > > 3. Pingback > ----------- > > For some reason though the Referer Header solution was not enough, and so > the pingback protocol was invented. > > http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback > > I am still not quite clear what this solution brings in addition to the > refback one, other than that > > - it declares the method of the pingback declaratively. If there is a ping > back header, then it is clear that it can be used. The referer header is so > much part of the web, it won't be clear to anyone if the WebId server is > using it. > > - it makes it possible for the web page owner to decide who should process the > pings, rather than leaving that to the apache server owner (though that is > not true of the HTTP Header mechanism proposed) > > - it makes it easy to chose another server as the ping server > > > Looking at the specification one has a feeling that it is pretty well thought > through. Mostly. One glaringly archaic piece now is the requirement on the > xmlrpc response. Essentially in order to notify someone of something that is > referring to them they have set up an xmlrpc system, where a simple HTML FORM > would have done! XMLRPC I think is no longer the flavour du jour, and people > have moved on. HTML FORMS remain used by everyone everywhere. They don't seem > to go out of fashion. They are also really easy to use, and every developer > needs to know how to use them. > > > 4. Semantic Ping Back > --------------------- > > The linked data movement developed an enhancement of the Ping Back service > described in 3 above. Essentially it adds an ontology to the link system > described in the ping back service above, and the details are described here > > http://aksw.org/Projects/SemanticPingBack > > Most important perhaps is the pingback service relation > > http://purl.org/net/pingback/service > > defined as > > <http://purl.org/net/pingback/service> a owl:ObjectProperty ; > :comment "This property is used to link the target resource with a > pingpack RPC service URI. It is the RDF " ; > :isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/net/pingback/> ; > :label "pingback service" . > > > 5. Improved Semantic Ping Back > ------------------------------ > > > So my guess is that being the early days of the semantic web, 4 is still new > enough that it can be changed. Ie, none of the xmlrpc agents are going to be > looking for that relation, and so we have a chance either to add a new > relation, or to create a very similar relation to fix the bugs of pingback. > Here is what I propose > > @prefix ping: <http://purl.org/net/pingback/> . > @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . > > > service:ping a rdf:Property; > rdfs:domain foaf:Agent; #probably a restriction to be removed, or be > refined... > rdfs:range xxx:POSTResource; > rdfs:comment """ > This relation specifies a method for services that wish to let > document owner know that they are linking to this resource. > > The relation relates a WebId to a collection (named ?coll from here > on). A new resource of type PingEvent can be created in that collection > by POST ing a URL that mentions the given WebId. > > The content that should be sent to the collection is what would be the > result > of POSTing the following form > > <form action="POST" action="?coll"> > referer: <input type="text" name="referer"/><br/> > comment: <input type="text" name="comment"/> > </form> > > The representation returned by a GET on the POSTResource can even return > the above html form, making it human readable. > > ( A nice improvement would be for the form to contain rdfa markup, that > would make it clear what the semantics of the form was, by using relations > described in this ontology ) > > The resource created should be a named ping request, which itself > can be described using this ontology. > """ . > > > This it seems to me would be so transparently simple as to be self explanatory > to any web developer, increasing uptake and reducing the need for explanation > - > especially if the resource returns a web form as described above. > > > 6. Improving Semantic PingBack with foaf+ssl > -------------------------------------------- > > > Just as with 2, semantic ping back can be improved with foaf+ssl, helping > the ping back service identify the user making the ping request. This can be > very > useful in linked data worlds between large databases that may be pinging each > other > very often. This would allow trusted agent's pings to be accepted more > automatically > than new ones. > > > Henry Story > > > [1] http://www.the-art-of-web.com/system/logs/ > [1] http://esw.w3.org/Foaf%2Bssl/FAQ > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > foaf-protocols mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
