Archives

April 2004 (7)
March 2004 (12)
February 2004 (12)
January 2004 (22)
December 2003 (19)
November 2003 (16)
October 2003 (26)
September 2003 (18)
August 2003 (38)
July 2003 (80)
June 2003 (13)
May 2003 (24)
April 2003 (76)
March 2003 (75)
February 2003 (51)
January 2003 (73)

Category

Family (5)
FYI (18)
Games (2)
Geek (88)
Geographic (3)
Hacks (13)
Home (15)
Humor (54)
Ideas (20)
Ideaspace (15)
Local (15)
Metadata (10)
Microsoft (2)
MovableType (5)
Nitwits (66)
PKI (2)
Politics (22)
Quotes (3)
RDF (15)
RSS (4)
Security (3)
Semantic Web (13)
Site Info (13)
Social Networks (1)
Spam (9)
Sysadmin (1)
Tips (2)
Tivo (2)
TMFTOTHD (1)
To Do (1)
Unlisted (1)
Web (3)
Windows (1)

Local

« MetroBlogs »
DC metroblogs
beltway bloggers

Links


Assorted bits

Blogroll Me!
GeoURL
Listed on BlogShares




May 16, 2003

Vouching for you?

Or consider that foaf:Group allows a site to offer up information about it's membership, if so desired. From this perspective you could, conceivably, have one service 'trust' another. That is, Syndic8's foaf service could be inquired of to see if the site is a known one. Likewise being able to state whether it knows the contact for that site.

The idea is that foaf isn't just for people alone, groups could use it as well.

And, as I'm sure everyone would likely inquire, anything offering up a foaf info would certainly do well to let it's users know what's going on.

For the solution to weblogs.com not doing it's own dirty work, it could always use the Syndic8 xml-rpc calls to see if there's a known RSS feed for that site's URL. Were other sites that possessed catalogs or directories of links to likewise start sharing them, either via web services or in a RESTful fashion, it might be a good start.

Does a remote site's statement count as vouching for you? That's up to the site asking the questions. If it finds the remote site doesn't give it reliable references then it's certainly welcome to cease using it. Couple enough of these references together, maybe not on every request, and you start building a weight. Enough 'points' and the URL's good enough to continue.

It's more of that 'semantic web' stuff some of us keep going on about. Maybe we've got a few things working right, in spite of what some folks would have you believe.

Geek
Perma  | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | 06:39 PM  | xml
Comments

Hmmm, we just came up with same terminology:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/crimson1/2003/05/14#a223 (see the second last comment).

The important thing about an explicit "vouch" is that we have "blame", which means it becomes possible to weed out whole branches of bad sites, rather than one at a time.

Regards, etc...
David

Posted by: David Janes on May 20, 2003 06:35 AM
Post a comment






* if you do not leave a valid e-mail or URL your comment may be deleted *







Navigation

Recent Entries

America and Europe: Vive la différence?
Server changes afoot
Diet behavior mod
Googling for sensitive info
Outlook 2003 and IMAP, a marriage made in Hell
Bike to Work Day, May 7th
Speakeasy rocks
Zippo USB?
When geographic data is nowhere 'near' correct
Local campaign contributions

User comments
Trackbacks

Contact

send me an e-mail E-mail
chat with me using MS messenger MSN Messenger
chat with me via AIM America Online
chat with me on ICQ ICQ
chat with me on Yahoo! Yahoo
Add my vCard to your electronic addressbook vCard
Friend of a Friend FoaF

Syndication

XML  RDF  CDF

Comments

XFML

Extra Stuff

foaf
vCard
pgp info
Linked In
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64