At 01:18 PM 6/11/99 -0400, Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III wrote: >At the workshop, we discussed the ability to sign BLOBs not simply an XML >document. I do not see this requirement above. Right. It does derive from the fact that one is referring to a resource by way of a URI (as does sigs of sigs, multiple sigs, etc.) but I am now much clearer. I also added Richard Hime's ealier requirement about being able to sign the original document encoding. [1] >Does this mean that XML-Signature will use XML (not RDF) that is modeled >such that it translates easily into RDF, but does not actually use RDF? It means that we should have some representation of our data model, be it a directed label graph, set of 3-tuples, RDF syntax, or what-not. I'm not advocating the RDFsyntax, just a data model, such that one will be able to do cool queries across things like signatures on signatures. >Finally, a minor point, I notice that this workgroup and workproduct is >alternatively called Signed XML and XML-DSig XML-Signature(s) is the normative name, I've tweaked that document to reflect that. [1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xml-dsig-requirements-990601.html _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org XML-DSig Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/Received on Monday, 14 June 1999 17:35:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:06 GMT