- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:23:06 +0200
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKnOUCPD=fBVaN_eze+bE7gf=+Sb7tmtFnAoqQnZxw=3w@mail.gmail.com>
On 1 April 2013 18:05, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > On 1 Apr 2013, at 18:01, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > > > On 4/1/13 11:56 AM, Henry Story wrote: > >>> > >>> Though I think we have consensus slightly in favour rdfs : Resource > >> > >> It is clear that there is no consensus at present. I still don't have a > clear use case for why you want what > >> you want. > >> > >> Henry > > > > There is consensus about the need for a relation that associates an > rdfs:Resource (or owl:Thing) with a public key. What's clearly in dispute > is the appropriate relation :-) > > Put that way we are getting closer to something I can agree with. But the > use case for the relation from owl:Thing to the public key needs to be > developed. This use case will probably help work out what the name of the > relation should be and what its meaning would need to be. > Clearly, the term used to relate anyURI to an key should be "key" One other point arises. Should WebID/TLS have a dependency on FOAF. This would exclude people like facebook etc. > > Henry > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > >
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 16:23:34 UTC