- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:42:20 +0100
- To: foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
In a paper we are submitting for SPOT2009 [1] there are a couple of
formulae I fear may not quite express what I wanted to express. These
are (P11) and (P13)
#(P11)
(_:clientGrph {_:client hasPrivateKeyFor pubKey}) log:conjunction [
=> { romeo:i = :client } ] .
#(P13)
(P13) ( _:romeoGrph { _:client hasPrivateKeyFor pubKey } )
log:conjunction [
=> { romeo:i = _:client } ]
What I want to do is say that if you look at the graph that is the
union of what romeo believes, and a subset of what the server
believes, then that merged graph implies { romeo:i = _:client } .
But I do not want to assert the result in the triple store either. It
should remain within { }.
I am afraid what I have said might imply that the server himself then
should believe romeo:i = _:clinent .
Perhaps it would have been better to state
(P13') ( _:romeoGrph { _:client hasPrivateKeyFor pubKey } )
log:conjunction _:union .
_:union log:includes { romeo:i = _:client } ] .
But I am not sure if log:includes is a relation from the consequences
of the _:union graph .
Perhaps I need
(P13") ( _:romeoGrph { _:client hasPrivateKeyFor pubKey } )
log:conjunction _:union .
_:union log:conclusion [ log:includes { romeo:i =
_:client } ] ].
And perhaps I need to add to the union the definition of
hasPrivateKeyFor as an inverse functional property
(D1) :hasPrivateKeyFor a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty;
rdfs:domain foaf:Agent;
rdfs:range cert:PublicKey .
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Henry
[1] see the thread discussing it starting at http://twurl.nl/ljlgzh
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 14:42:59 UTC