W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:01:17 -0500
Message-ID: <512393BD.3060607@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
CC: 'RDF-WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 02/19/2013 04:37 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Not saying that's a *good* definition, and there are certainly lots 
> of alternatives that would have different consequences. My point is 
> that in order to be able to state signatures of graphs in JSON-LD you
> need some such definition and it's not clear to me that you need a
> change in RDF semantics to make that possible.

This is, in fact, what we do right now. So 1000 points to you for coming
up with the solution by yourself so quickly. It took us several months
to work out the details. :)

However, it's a kludge (yes, this is arguable) and it falls apart the
second you need to sign more than one graph, which we will have to do
for decentralized multi-party legal contracts (which we do plan to support).

Using blank nodes as graph names addresses this issue, with or without
Pat's conceptual tweak.

I'm probably going to push that that the JSON-LD specification is
crystal clear on the whole 'denotes' issue. IRIs and blank node IDs,
when used to name graphs in JSON-LD, denote the graph. Doing anything
else seems to create an ambiguity problem, and that's the last thing we
need in a financial system.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals
http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 15:01:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT