> > The last basic data type is also the most important. It contains > > the definition of the information about a particular persons. I > > call this an 'identity'. The minimal information that is required > > to be part of the idea, is a foaf:Person definition with a public > > key defined in it (WOT - Web of Trust). As I thought that a user > > should only make availlable what he/she wants, one can also decide > > to encrypt part of the identity and therefor restrict access to > > a group. (Again, more on this (the groups) later.) > > Have you looked at foaf+ssl? > http://esw.w3.org/Foaf%2Bssl/FAQ > > Henry Actually I did have a look at it, but I do not know if it is good to require all users having to have an URI, because you either need to own a domain or find some kind person to give a subdomain or whatever to you. And if one would use an URI such as http://facebook.com/~me or something like this, we would end up depending on them anyway. Is this view correct or somehow ... wrong?
I know had a further look at it and it seems that one needs to have a web server to use it. At least that is what I guessed from [1]. But I think that it should be possible to retrieve such a document just by establishing a connection through TCP or whatever direct connection one could have between two nodes and encrypt that with SSL. Personally, I do prefer this method, as the emphasis on the idea was that of p2p connections. Nonetheless, I think that it is important to support both, even if the latter would require a server and a domain. [1] http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/foaf_ssl_adding_security_to
