Re: Summary of cert : key Domain discussion

On 30 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> Summarizing the thread.
> 
> I proposed that the Domain of : key be more general than Agent, since a public key is just a number, more than just an agent could have such a key. 

The :key relation relates an agent to a public key of which he has the private key. 
This means that one can understand what it is to verify that an agent has a key. 

> An example I gave was that an account (e.g. belonging to an agent) could have a key pair.

the whole question is what does it mean to "have a key pair" .

> 
> Henry raised the point that you would then lose an inference that the subject of a key was an Agent.  However you should really use rdfs : type for this imho.

My point was that 
  - changing the domain means that you have developed a completely different relation which is not the same as cert:key.
  - that it does not make things simpler as you initially claimed it would
  - that it is ill defined
  - that your reasons for wanting to introduces it rely on handwaving some ontology which has not been developed
  - that you can't tell us what it would mean for the relation to apply to inanimate objects
  - that you don't distinguish nonsensical from sensical applications of the term, when it is applied outside of the realm of agents.

> 
> Henry also raised the point that it would be possible to construct triples such as the eiffel tower having a public key.  Unsure if this is a big deal, or even a demerit :)

You could not tell us why you thought this was or was not nonsensical, what it would mean, etc... 

> 
> There was a small straw poll which was pretty evenly balanced, slightly in favour of keeping the status quo.
> 
> If there's further interest in this I'll raise an issue at some point.  But I think I have enough to model what I want to now.
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/