W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Domain of :key

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:45:10 -0400
Message-ID: <5159E3C6.3010107@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webid@w3.org
On 4/1/13 3:15 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> We can add new relations. Just let us know what you want. I am not sure why you want to merge two relations. You have not explained this yet, nor have you given a full use case.
>
> As far as X509 goes if you look at it it is relating a DN and its subject alternative names to a public key.
> If you think of that semantically that can be modelled as
>
> <> a X509Cert;
>     foaf:primaryTopic<ldap://DN=....>  ;
>   
> <ldap://DN=....>  owl:sameAs<https://my.domain.example/joe#me>;
>      cert:key [ a cert:RSAPublicKey;
>                 cert:modulus "...";
>                 cert:exponent "..." ] .

Why not:

<#dnReferentID>
<#hasKey> <#PublicKey> .
<#sanReferentID>
<#hasKey> <#PublicKey> .

<#hasKey>
a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, owl:ObjectProperty .

What's critical to WebID is the InverseFunctionalProperty relation 
semantics which help appreciate the optimal domain for <#hasKey> .

Conclusion: we need to cater for the fact that public keys can (and 
will) be associated with all sorts of things (owl:Thing entity types) 
for a plethora of reasons. Thus, it's best veer away from generic terms 
(and resulting intuitions) when the usage purpose is very specific.



-- 

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 Monday, 1 April 2013 19:46:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:43 UTC