- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:47:12 +0100
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: oneingray@gmail.com, ivan@main.uusia.org, semantic-web@w3.org
On 1 March 2011 14:37, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > This thrust for a canonical serialization puzzles me. What problem > would a canonical serialization solve? Off the top of my head: 1. SIgning RDF 2. Signing Named Graphs 3. Signing Triples 4. Fast Comparisons 5. Synchronization >From the paper: Hash digests have been used extensively for file comparison, for example in [1], where it is used for avoiding the duplicate storage of identical files, and in backup systems. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Bell Labs Research > > > From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: canonical RDF graph representations > Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:13:08 -0600 > >> On 1 March 2011 10:50, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@main.uusia.org> wrote: >>> The “The case for generating URIs by hashing RDF content” paper >>> [1], dating back to 2002, mentions that “there is no current >>> canonical serialization standard for RDF”. (Then, they suggest >>> their own canonical representation.) >>> >>> I wonder, has such a standard been since proposed? >>> >>> [1] http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2002/HPL-2002-216.pdf >> >> Yes, it's important to have a standard way canonicalize RDF, or, at >> least, RDF/XML imho. It's required for xmlsig, I think. >> >> I think there was an issue with bnodes ... maybe it's something we can solve. >> >> Maybe we can get this quickly to rec status? >> >>> >>> -- >>> FSF associate member #7257 >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 13:47:47 UTC