> Great discussion folks! > > I think this thread should give the w3 folks we are CCing here a good idea > of the passion, quality of work, depth of discussion and breadth of the > foaf+ssl > community, which includes hackers from every programming language, > researchers > from every continent, security as well as linked data specialists, and > more. > > Perhaps we should leave them a bit of time to digest the details of this > thread, > so they can then let us know how we should proceed. > > No need to work out the final details of the spec right now :-) Let us > leave ourselves a bit of work for when we get round to the formal piece. >
Digesting as we speak, and again, very nice thinking. Especially agree with Bruno's point about security - I think crypto should be actually looked at. Imagine replacing e-mail with social network messages that are by default encrypted and with verified identify. You'd solve the spam problem and the security of e-mail problem in one fell swoop :) I'm going through the thread, and just to be clear, what I would like is: 1) A wiki-page listing AC reps and member organizations, and potential WG invited experts. 2) A short part for the Social Web XG final report that really goes into the core ideas of attaching certificates to URIs in a way that is easily understood. 3) There really should be a draft spec. Henry's original blog post is great (and I agree, the idea is so simple that a spec may not seem needed), but a single HTML page that lays out the ideas in a spec-like manner would be great. Then we can, hopefully in August and Sept, begin talking about next steps in an e
