- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:46:35 +0200
- To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
- CC: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>, Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com>, "foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org" <foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, "paola.dimaio@gmail.com" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
On 27/4/09 10:18, Ian Davis wrote: > Dan, > > Sorry to hear about the attack on your server. If there's anything I or > Talis can do to help, just let me know. Thanks! > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org > <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the concern and offers of help. It'll take a few > days to figure out the best way to make the Web side of the project more > helpable. In the meantime http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ is worth > some attention! > > > With the lessening emphasis on RDF/XML, shouldn't we be looking at > signing the triples. I seem to recall a paper by Jeremy Carroll that > discussed this. Also, now many of us are focussed on bnode-free linked > data the problems of signing are much easier: serialise as ntriples, > sort and sign the result. A lot of the hairyness of xmlsig comes from the transforms. I prefer signing something nice and concrete, whether XML, RDFa or JSON. What % of "linked data" is truly free of bnodes? Dan
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 08:47:19 UTC