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

VOTE CONCLUSION - was: 2 resolutions, please vote

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:24:01 +0100
Message-Id: <BFA23140-E42B-4ABA-8254-2E9080F9265C@bblfish.net>
To: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Thanks for the votes.

So there is pretty unanimous support for both proposals.

1) xsd:hexBinary
----------------

 has been argued in detail so I think that is established. It also fits in nicely with the 
XML dsig crypto usage -  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/  - which uses binaries. That means our ontology could be thought of as the 
GRDDLable ontology of that spec. We use a hex encoding of binary but they use a base64 one. 

QUESTION: is it on the cards that the SPARQL working group add an identification of base64 and hex binaries? (It need not be this year, it can be in the next years) Ie: that a query made in one encoding should be true when made on a graph with the same binary encoded in the other encoding? This would be very handy. Can someone take on the task of passing that need on to that group?

2) Merge RSA into cert ontogy
-----------------------------

This had less debate here so I think there are a few questions I have on that subject, before I proceed. The reason I put them in different namespaces was that I felt writing 

 key  rsa:modulus ...
      rsa:exponent ...

made more sense than writing

  key cert:modulus ...

but perhaps that is more visible with DSA and their one letter names p q ...

  key dsa:p "...";
      dsa:q "...";

immediately explains things whereas cert:p, cert:q a bit less... 

Now was the reason that people did not want these to be in the same namespace simply that as we know having too many namespaces
would be annoying to large providers?  Is that does solved with RDFa profiles? http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/#s_profiles ? Or are there other considerations?

I'll write out the ontology in more detail for RSA and DSA today ignoring the details in the meantime.

Henry

 
On 21 Nov 2011, at 17:13, Henry Story wrote:

> The WebID minutes have been published here:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/11/21-webid-minutes.html
> 
> So we have two RESOLUTIONS, but we would of course like some wider approval by implementors
> 
> -  use XSD:hexBinary for modulus
>    + this makes it possible to express the verification in one very efficient SPARQL ASK query
>    + it is a well known schema widely supported by all the tools
>    + the UI part can be dealt with using javascript : if someone comes up with some nice javascript to make it look good,
>      I would be very tempted to add it to the spec
> 
> -  merge rsa into cert ontology
>    background: 
>     if we use xsd:hexBinary then there is only one relation that is widely used in the cert ontology the cert:key relation
>     the rsa ontology has only two relations that are used
>   => so we might as well merge rsa into the cert ontology  
> 
>  Do we have wider support for this?
> 
> 	Henry

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 09:24:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 November 2011 09:24:34 GMT