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

Re: REQDOC: Need final input!

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:40:43 -0500
Message-ID: <000701c1bf27$66f693b0$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
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>

> 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

What about the capability for OWL to deal with trust/provenance issues? If
anyone can say anything about anything (using RDF), we need a way to decide
what to reason about, that is, assertions might be filtered by XML sigs etc.
I certainly don't understand all the ways XML Sigs might interact with OWL.
In any case I hope such usage would be straightforward.

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 19:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC