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
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 14:36:18 UTC