- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:35:03 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 10 Jan 2012, at 00:28, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 1/9/12 6:21 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2012, at 00:15, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
>>
>>> henry wrote :
>>>
>>> yes. as it happens Jurgens graph would pass my verifier.
>>>
>>> no it [1] doesn't pass your verifier, which is absolutely correct!
>>>
>>> message :
>>>
>>> Verification of http://www.2sea.org/sea.rdf#turnguard?
>>> failed keys in profile don't match key in certificate for http://www.2sea.org/sea.rdf#turnguard
>>>
>>> only the response message is unclear as to why it didn't pass, because there is no statement about http://www.2sea.org/sea.rdf#turnguard in the graph.
>> Well that's why it did not pass!
>>
>> Currently the ask query requires me to put the WebID from you SAN in to the ?webid slot of the SPARQL query.
>> It is really clearly explained here:
>>
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/index-respec.html#verifying-the-webid-claim
>>
>> PREFIX :<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
>> PREFIX xsd:<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
>> ASK {
>> ?webid :key [
>> :modulus ?mod;
>> :exponent ?exp;
>> ] .
>> }
>>
>> I don't know how this could be any clearer.
>>
>> Ok the message could say "no relation between the WebId ... and the public key ... was found". That would be clearer.
>> I'll add that as a todo.
>>
>> Henry
>
> Your query has ambiguous scope, does that clarity matters?
If it is true then it does matter indeed.
> SPARQL engines will produce different results do to how they handle:
>
> 1. default graphs
> 2. named graphs.
The spec is clear that the graph considered is the graph that is produced from the representation returned.
Is it still ambiguous now?
Henry
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 23:35:33 UTC