- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:20:21 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 05/01/2012 13:51, Jim McCusker wrote: > Graham, > > I disagree, mostly because there is an emphasis in RDF and Linked Data > now that what matters is the content, not the format. RDF graphs are > currently being served up in multiple alternative representations at > once. How do we best relate them, and why should I have to know > exactly which file Tim signed to be able to verify what he said? > Getting abstract graph identities and relating them to more concrete > representations (serializations and specific copies) is actually quite > easy [1]. The signer can then sign whatever they are comfortable with > and the relationships between serializations and abstract graphs can > be used to verify the signatures. Post-teleconference... it could help if the wiki page had links to the RDF graph terminology you're using. I'm way behind the RDF WG discussions. I think my difficulties here stem substantially from the assertion being part of the account, rather than something that is done to an account. Example: how do you handle this: Alice asserts an account with some set of RDF triples at time t1. Bob asserts an account with the same set of RDF triples at time t2. Are these the same account? If so, who asserted it, and when? #g --
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:48:37 UTC