W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2011

Re: WebID-ISSUE-11 (bblfish): define an inverse of cert:identity [ontologies]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 02:36:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4D44CE92.40701@webr3.org>
To: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> WebID-ISSUE-11 (bblfish): define an inverse of cert:identity [ontologies]
> 
> A proposal for a definition of a relation from the agent to the public key that is the inverse of cert:identity. 

Is this under the scope of the WebID XG?

> ... It seems like it should be more natural to have a relation from an agent to a number of his public keys.
> ...
> [] a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
>     rsa:modulus 34958345...;
>     rsa:public_exponent 55000;
>     cert:identity :me .
> 
> Whereas it could be done more nicely with
> 
> :me cert:publicKey [  rsa:modulus 123123123...;
> ...
> It is true that in rdfa one can use the rel="inverse" construct to get the same effect.

do you mean @rev ?

> The definition would look something like this
> 
>    rdfs:domain foaf:Agent;

Is there any need to define the domain? it's only constraining uses of 
the ontologies for no good reason, any agent using the property will 
already be well defined as an agent, and inferably so by several other 
properties.

> The cert:identity relation could be deprecated.

Any reason to deprecate? it's just a named inverseOf and does have use 
cases, perhaps just document that in x scenarios cert:publicKey is 
simpler to use.

> What should the relation be called. Something shorter probably.

unsure, also unsure how important the lexical form of the uri is, 
publicKey seems to indicate the correct relation though, just make 
sure the range is clear as to whether a hex string, formatted key, or 
logic hooks are expected.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 02:37:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 January 2011 02:37:39 GMT