W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

RE: REQDOC: Need final input!

From: Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:04:15 -0800
Message-ID: <0DCC27458EB5D51181840002A507069E01B08238@orsmsx117.jf.intel.com>
To: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On second look, that might have been Dan Connolly's wording - oops.
-Ned

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Ned [mailto:ned.smith@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:01 PM
> To: 'Jim Hendler'; Dan Connolly; Jeff Heflin
> Cc: WebOnt
> Subject: RE: REQDOC: Need final input!
> 
> 
> 
> *** PGP Signature Status: good
> *** Signer: Ned M. Smith <ned.smith@intel.com> 
> *** Signed: 2/26/2002 4:00:31 PM
> *** Verified: 2/26/2002 4:03:08 PM
> *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
> 
> Not to split hairs, but the wording in the last line of Jeff Heflin's
> text might raise some flags. "It should be straightforward" may
> suggest we don't understand the basis of the interaction between XML
> Signatures and OWL. 
> 
> I recommend wording to the effect of:
> ...
> "XML Signatures and cononicalization transformations can be applied
> safely to OWL expressions because OWL conforms to the XML standard."
> 
> -Ned
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:37 PM
> > To: Dan Connolly; Jeff Heflin
> > Cc: WebOnt
> > Subject: Re: REQDOC: Need final input!
> > 
> > 
> > At 4:33 PM -0600 2/26/02, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 10:09, Jeff Heflin wrote:
> > >[...]
> > >>  6) "Integration of digital signatures" - Dan Connolly had 
> > volunteered to
> > >>  provide alternate wording.
> > >
> > >Crud... sorry... in case this is still helpful:
> > >
> > >	The W3C XML Digital Signature specification is
> > >	an important building block for communication among
> > >	untrusted parties, which is important for many
> > >	ontology applications [, for example, ...?].
> > >	It should be straightforward to use XML Signatures
> > >	with OWL.
> > >
> > 
> > all of the use cases need digital sigs, but the agents and ubiq 
> > computing probably the most of all of the ones in the current use 
> > cases, so I think if we just left out the missing "for example"
> > from  this and included those two as the motivators, this would be
> > a good  change
> >   -JH
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Professor James Hendler				  
> > hendler@cs.umd.edu
> > Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> > Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  
> > 301-405-6707 (Fax)
> > AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  
> > College Park, MD 20742
> > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> > 
> 
> 
> *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 19:04:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT