- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:37:57 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, public-xg-webid@w3.org, nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
On 3 November 2011 13:08, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.11.2011 00:11, Nathan wrote:
>>>
>>> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Along the lines of this simplification what about:
>>>>
>>>> cert:hex -> xsd:string ?
>>>>
>>>> If anyone thinks this has merit, I'll open up a new thread...
>>>
>>> Yes, or xsd:hexBinary
>>
>> I proposed xsd:hexBinary, but Henry say that it is unreadable.
>>
>> My another proposal is to use xsd:string with owl:withRestriction and
>> xsd:pattern (something like [0-9a-fA-F]{2}[[:space:]]).
>>
>> So we have:
>> 1. xsd:string
>> 2. xsd:string with restriction [0-9a-fA-F]{2}
>> 3. xsd:hexBinary
>
> Can you write out in N3 an example of how you want to use it?
I think in n3 it's something like:
<#me> cert:key <#key1>
<#key1> a rsa:RSAPublicKey
rsa:exponent 1234 ;
rsa:modulus "ABC123" .
Henry, in today's informal skype conf you seemed to be pondering
whether to reject this, or put it to a vote. Just let us know what
you think is the best way forward.
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 17:38:28 UTC