[Freedombox-discuss] FOAF developers taking FreedomBox into their equation
On 10 March 2011 18:22, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:20:46PM +0100, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:11:59PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
>>> I understand wanting to do things half-assed to harness momentum. What I
>>> am concerned about is a future point in time where we have to throw out the
>>> entire AAA infrastructure and replace it with something else. ?If no one is
>>> working on these other complex layers, can we be assured that that will not
>>> be necessary?
>> I've been quite scared to read here people talking about using dyndns
>> service, so I did some scroogle on the freedombox DNS issue.
>> Haven't found a lot of things yet, apart from an old app  that is a
>> open source implementation of dynamic DNS service.
>> It's note really maintained anymore, but the code is here still here
>> waiting some revival, or rewrite.
>> It uses a mysql database as backend, so maybe one way to have this service
>> decentralized might be to change its backend for some other database like
>> Then every freedombox would have that service running, would register its
>> new IP to this self-hosted service, which would push the change in the
>> couchdb. Or maybe just some freedombox that did agree to run this public
>> It's just a basic idea that is quite unclear in my brain and need probably
>> a lot of thinking and testing. So if you have ideas yourself, please
>> comment. :)
> Well, since you posted this to the FOAF thread, let me take up the challenge
> of thinking in that direction ;-)
> This "some other database like couchdb" could be "RDF storage" and "some
> freedombox that did agree to run this" could be "certain context mutually
> declared using FOAF".
FOAF is very much like couchDB (the noSQL pattern) but with the added
"feature" that the terms (entity attribute/value) often have global
namespaces so that is scale (like the web).
This in principle allows data interop. across different servers and
machines, without having to invent an API every time you want to do
Or you can simply display the terms in a web page (HTML5).
UK/US Govs already early adopters of this, but others are coming on
board. It's a great data interchange format, imho.
> From a user POV, if I add my "FreedomBox hackers" context to the "report
> internet address to these contexts" service, and you add your "Debian
> freaks" context to the "be a lighthouse for these contexts" feature, then
> you and anyone of those you've categorized as "Debian freaks" can find my
> Technically, I tell my FreedomBox to do a FOAF "ping" (i.e. a lightweight
> RESTful single https request) to a range of FreedomBoxes including yours,
> each time an ip of my FreedomBox changes.
> Technically, you tell your FreedomBox to run a DNS(-like) server responding
> only authorized peers, extending the hierarchically internet DNS with a
> .dynamic TLD, and injecting into this new TLD the new IP(s) of same trusted
> peers whenever they request it updated.
> The RDF storage could be 4store, packaged for Debian a few days ago (still
> pending approval from NEW queue but already available in my debian.jones.dk
> repository for anyone wanting to play with it.
> We still need to figure out how to actually setup WebID, but should already
> be possible to try put together scripts to tie above pieces together.
> If FOAF is deemed unsuitable for FreedomBox, then those scripts should be
> possible to adapt to whatever other core friendship broking mechanism is
> picked/invented instead.
> - Jonas
> ?* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> ?* Tlf.: +45 40843136 ?Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> ?[x] quote me freely ?[ ] ask before reusing ?[ ] keep private
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org