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

Re: Warrent or PublishingEvent or Commitment and Cardinality

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:37:57 +0200
Message-ID: <018901c42164$ed26dd90$1f12fea9@named4gc1asnuj>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>

Coming back to the graph/warrant cardinality question:

> >  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

Our signature method defines three things:
1. The graph/graphset canonicalization method (e.g. what Jeremy proposed in
his signing RDF paper)
2. The hash function for hashing the canonicalized graph/grapset
3. The Signature algorithm for signing the hash value.

There is no problem in defining a canonicalization method for graphsets,
thus it is also possible to sign them.

In order to avoid unnecessary metadata, I still think we should loosen the
cardinality between graph and warrant. Another argument is compatibility,
XML Signature also allows signing several resources at once.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>; "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; "ext
Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Warrent or PublishingEvent or Commitment and Cardinality


>
> 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 Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:36:10 GMT

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