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

Re: Warrent or PublishingEvent or Commitment and Cardinality

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:38:29 +0300
Message-Id: <F700C872-891E-11D8-8D1D-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>


On Apr 07, 2004, at 18:44, ext Chris Bizer wrote:

>
> 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.

I'm really liking "Certification", (or else "Voucher").

I think commitment may suggest alot more legal machinery (or need for
comprehensive explainations) than we want to bother with...

>
>
>
> 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.

Given that a signature in a warrant/certification would be graph 
specific,
I'm not sure how this relationship wouldn't be percieved to be 
one-to-one
(not that I think the language of the comment necessarily states so 
strict
a cardinality).

>  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.

But how would you sign the warrant?

Patrick


> 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
>
>
>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 01:39:54 GMT

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