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

Re: Warrent or PublishingEvent or Commitment and Cardinality

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:37:16 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f55bca1c78f8bd9@[10.0.100.76]>
To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <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.


I agree.

Pat

>
>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
>>
>>
>>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 12:37:18 GMT

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