Sharing Profile Information

M. David Peterson xmlhacker at
Thu Jun 30 00:29:04 PDT 2005

Oh good... either no one has read this or had time enough to respond back 
regarding using <> to register temporary users 
which I suddenly realised why brewing a new pot of coffee would be a great 
way to become the object of everyones affefction by opening the door to the 
comment spammers.

Please disregard that portion of my last response. That DEFINITELY WILL NOT 
be what that domain would be used for. :D

On 6/30/05, M. David Peterson <xmlhacker at> wrote:
> I agree David. This is without a doubt a system that will quickly rid 
> itself of those who bend too often, stretch too far, or purposely will ill 
> intent break the moral code that, if not literally specified as part of the 
> specification, we all obviously know they exist and when they've been 
> broken. With the added element of having the ability to deligate to a new 
> verification server then the concern of "losing one identity" goes away 
> (who's specific idea/addition was this one... Genius. Shear and Remarkable 
> Genius!).
> With this in place the offenders will have no where to run and with 
> options as to "where to validate now?" then this opens the possibility that 
> one can realistically feel confident in sharing personal information in 
> confidence to then share it with those you choose and only those you choose.
> This also brings us back to the possible usage of the<>domain to be used for a variety of purposes, one of them could be as an 
> interface to develop, update, and add or change permissions. If I remember 
> correctly the concern with the usage of this domain was the connection to 
> the openid identity when the focus of the project was to discourage anything 
> that remotely resembled this scenario. But if a delegate became a required 
> aspect of anyone using this domain to create an identity to act as a 
> delegate as well as to securely manage your FOAF profile then it seems the 
> original concerns are easily overcome.
> If the domain were transfered to Brad or whomever is overseeing the .org 
> side of things and then those who had interest in hosting an instance of 
> this domain simply requested a thrid-tier domain (e.g. 
> <> for members of the 
> ChannelXML project) and, if available, would be given usage of this domain 
> as long as they agreed to a much more strict set of guidelines such as those 
> specific to the abuse of a users FOAF file, etc....)
> At present time I had plans to simply use this domain as a demonstration 
> server where potential "customers" could register temporary user names to 
> then use throughout the system to test things to see how and if it works to 
> then list all available service providers in which they could gain service 
> from if they were to "like what they saw".
> Again, I simply want to help promote this project and I believe this is 
> one way that could really do a great job of that. But if this is still seen 
> as something that gains no real benefit while causing too much confusion 
> then I have no plans to push this any further... Just want to help where and 
> if I can :D
> Cheers :)
> On 6/29/05, David Recordon <david at> wrote:
> > 
> > That is true, but removing it from your FOAF file doesn't mean servers 
> > won't
> > have stored it, let alone if they had that they will delete it. By 
> > including
> > it as part of the spec then at least servers that play well with others 
> > will 
> > give users this control. Those that don't, I'd assume would be outed and
> > banned by consumers.
> > 
> > --David
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristopher Tate
> > Sent: Thu 6/30/2005 1:30 AM
> > 
> > The problem with this is that once a server has it -- it has it. there 
> > is no control over it. once it's out there, it's gone
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> <M:D/>
> M. David Peterson
> [ ][ ] 


M. David Peterson
[ ][ ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the yadis mailing list