Re: Graphs vs. Authorities vs. Warrants vs. Authentication vs. Certification etc.

(this got caught in spam trap)

-----Original Message-----



I basically agree that the Warrant makes the modelling clearer, at the
expense
of making it more complex and detailed. As much as possible we should avoid
going into details of any scheme (PGP or X.509), (although it would be
helpful to have a few example properties etc. and some idea of how it is
done
- we can even refer to some worked example on the web or something - but it
is at the wrong level of detail - we have to be convincing that that level
of
detail does not present problems). Agree wholeheartedly with extensibility
as
goal (although that makes MT grounding hard/impossible)

Two issues about the cardinality:
1) your OWL is incorrect - unimportant I can fix that later.

2) there is also an inverse cardinality constraint on swp:warrant, i.e. a
warrant has exactly one graph, hence I suggest inverting that property
making
it

swp:graphOfWarrant     @@ change name
    a rdf:Property ;
    rdfs:comment "The subject is a warrant by which the object graph can
be authenticated and
                  its assertional status and asserting or originating
authority determined." ;
    rdfs:range rdfg:Graph ;
    rdfs:domain swp:Warrant ;
    owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:int . @@ sic

More on the use of datatypes later ... I am unconfortable really.

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 05:44:00 UTC