W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2004

Warrent or PublishingEvent or Commitment and Cardinality

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:44:24 +0200
Message-ID: <00d501c41cb7$36e162f0$1f12fea9@named4gc1asnuj>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-archive@w3.org>

Hi,



I had a look at the swp.rdfs schema and



1. I'm thinking now that "PublishingEvent" is too restrictive. Somebody
might name an publish a graph. Somebody else might quote it, a third person
might also assert it ... So what about calling the thing "Commitment", a
term which is open for all kinds of relationsships, even others beside of
asserting and quoting.



2. Patrick's comment in the schema defines the cardinality between a
"warrent" or whatever it is called and a graph as a one-to-one relation. I
think there are many situations, where you want to attach several graphs to
one warrent, e.g. your are a information intermediary and you want to say
that you quote all the 500 graphs you pass on. Or you want to assert a more
complex rule set consisting of many interrelated graphs. Having separate
warrents in these cases just unnecessarily blows up the metadata. There is
also no problem with signing several graphs at once because the
SignatureMethod can define how the graph set gets canonialized.



So we could define:



   <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&swp;/Commitment">
      <rdfs:label>Commitment</rdfs:label>
      <rdfs:comment>
A relationship between an authority and one or more graphs, in which the
authority commits itself in
some way to the graphs. Commitments may include a digital signature by the
authority.
      </rdfs:comment>
   </rdfs:Class>


Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>; "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: rewrites for paper sections


>
> On Apr 07, 2004, at 15:58, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> >
> > We should consider whether Warrant is misnamed: possible other names:
> >   Publication
> >   PublishingEvent
>
> I don't think that the warrant (or whatever it is) equates to
> a publication event. The latter requires more than just the
> association of authority, signature, certificate, etc. with
> a graph -- i.e. the graph also has to be, er, published.
>
> It's really a kind of stamp, signette (sp?), brand, etc. of
> the graph which can be authenticated, and thereby allow the
> graph to be authenticated. I.e. a certificate of authenticity.
>
> (too bad Certificate is so overused...)
>
> It's a tool used in publication, not the publication itself.
>
> But I'm quite open to alternatives to Warrant.
>
> Can't think of any at the moment though...
>
> Patrick
>
> >
> > ... ???
> >
> > Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 12:48:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:42 GMT