- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:07:27 -0500
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
- CC: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
On 12/09/2014 03:48 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > Identical content will produce an identical hash. How would you reproduce the hash to verify this? Would you iterate over the document and remove any "ni" IDs, converting them to blank nodes? What if some of those were already "ni" IDs prior to running this proposed "ni" URI generation scheme? It seems there is insufficient information to reproduce the same steps required to produce the hash once the document has been modified. It seems you'd need to attach additional data to the document that indicates what the IDs of the nodes were prior to hashing -- which may defeat the purpose of the exercise. When I think about the details of this, it seems problematic. Perhaps all of the problems could be worked through to see the utility of it, but I'm not sold just yet. Keep in mind that "hash of the content" includes canonical blank node identifiers for all blank nodes in the document -- including the blank node you're about to rename in the next step of the process. That's what "content" means when you're talking about a graph; you've got to include the subject itself to talk about any triples. I don't see how you can do anything useful with the hash used in the "ni" URI without keeping track of the previous identifiers used in the graph. If the hash isn't useful, then perhaps a less complex approach for generating URIs would be preferred. So what I'm saying is that it seems this approach is only preferred if the hash is a useful piece of information (rather than opaque) -- it's something that can be easily regenerated and compared. How would that work? -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:07:50 UTC