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: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:15:25 +0300
Message-Id: <1E201441-8DDB-11D8-846D-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 13, 2004, at 17:37, ext Chris Bizer wrote:

>
> 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 see your point. In any case, I don't find there to be any such 1:1
cardinality defined in the schemas, or in the comments, so I think we're
OK with a warrant/certification being associated with more than one
graph (not that I would ever expect it to happen in real usage).

Patrick


>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 02:16:04 GMT

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