On 2/14/13 9:02 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> In the old days, the party line was that one uses reification for signing:
> _:statement1 dc:author "Bob" ;
> rdf:subject :TheMoon ;
> rdf:predicate :madeOf ;
> rdf:object :greenCheese .
I don't see a problem with the excerpt above. Like most things about
RDF, the lost visibility induced by RDF/XML made many key concepts near
impossible to explain and demonstrate. I remain confident that statement
reification feature of RDF, as it currently exists, will soon become
very useful and appreciated. With RDF you have to think like a wine
maker, in due course things simply get better for the customer.
A world devoid of SPARQL dominated by RDF/XML (rather than Turtle) is
not one that many were unable to comprehend or appreciate. Times are
changing. We sign statements in the real-world using hand written
signatures. We can also do so in the Web realm via RDF, in its current
form i.e., I would just add a triple to capture an RSA signature blob
(using a data: or http: scheme URI) .
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen