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

Re: Domain of :key

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:07:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLVVjUPNH2VvfD_1RCzZqO3buH_opVhVChUdKSZ_5pzOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On 1 April 2013 21:47, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 1 Apr 2013, at 21:46, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1 April 2013 21:16, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1 Apr 2013, at 21:15, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 April 2013 20:57, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Apr 2013, at 20:49, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Mon 2013-Apr-01, at 14:12, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In which point rdf:Resource is better than owl:Thing? I do some
>>> ontology state-of-the-art and I don't see too much ontologies with uses
>>> rdfs:Resource in rdfs:domain or rdfs:range. My conclusion to these
>>> aproaches is that rdfs:Resource is used in low-level ontologies and cert
>>> ont isn't in that level. Probably better consensus is owl:Thing.
>>> >> Of course, I don't change my mind and I still think that foaf:Agent
>>> is better.
>>> >
>>> > I'd contend that the cert ont _is_ (or at least, could easily be and
>>> arguably should be) a low-level ontology: it exists to describe keys and
>>> certificates. I don't see a sensible reason why the domain of the things
>>> keys and certificates described by it are associated with shouldn't be as
>>> broad as possible unless there's a good reason not to  and I'm at this
>>> point not entirely understanding what that reason might be.
>>>
>>> Because there is a specific relation of agents to keys, such that the
>>> agent is in control of the key.
>>> This is what WebID needs.
>>>
>>> If you need another relation from a anything to a key, there are many
>>> functions
>>>
>>> - rdfs:seeAlso
>>> - rdfs:member
>>> - xxx:signedWith
>>> - xxx:encryptedWith
>>> - xyz:myOwnerHasKey
>>> - xdw:ILikeThisKeyButITsNotMine
>>> - etc...
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I don't have a strong feeling on owl:Thing versus rdfs:Resource,
>>> except that it's not particularly clear what benefit is derived from
>>> restricting it to owl:Thing.
>>> >
>>> > There's a school of thought evident in this thread that one solution
>>> is to define another ontology which is identical to the cert ontology
>>> except for the domain of the things keys and certificates can be associated
>>> with. I don't buy that  it breaks interop. While semweb is, as Kingsley
>>> says, "fork friendly", there is still a cost associated with that (and in
>>> this case it's divisiveness).
>>>
>>> The school of thought is that we have a use case for the relation we
>>> have defined. It has been clearly
>>> defined and we find it useful. You have not defined the use case for
>>> your relation, or at least you
>>> have only been handwaving in the direction.
>>>
>>> We may find that you don't need a new relation at all but that you can
>>> compose it with other existing ones..
>>>
>>
>>
>> You've been given many use cases.  You are trying to dismiss arguments by
>> labeling them 'handwavy'.
>>
>> I'll repeat one.  Facebook integration.  You dont have much of a social
>> system if you design it to exclude facebook.
>>
>>
>> We have not excluded Facebook here at all.
>>
>>
>> The correct way is to include BOTH facebook and WebID not pick a winner.
>> I say this is a bug, the onus is on you to come up with a convincing
>> argument for exclusion.
>>
>>
>> Well given that we have not excluded facebook I don't see that you have a
>> point.
>>
>
> You may think so, but the last time I checked facebook were not using foaf
> : Agent
>
>
> So?
>

So since cert : key is used in the WebID+TLS spec it means that the subject
must be tied to FOAF.

Schema.org have their own social vocab.

Facebook have their own vocab.

There may be more in future.

Closely coupling the WebID Auth to foaf : Agent means it's harder to
include other systems.

Dont get me wrong, im a big fan of foaf.  But why put eggs in one basket
when it's not needed?


>
> Henry
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > M.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mo McRoberts - Analyst - BBC Archive Development,
>>> > Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
>>> > MC3 D4, Media Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ,
>>> > 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------------
>>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk
>>> > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
>>> > may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
>>> specifically stated.
>>> > If you have received it in
>>> > error, please delete it from your system.
>>> > Do not use, copy or disclose the
>>> > information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
>>> > immediately.
>>> > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
>>> > sent or received.
>>> > Further communication will signify your consent to
>>> > this.
>>> > -----------------------------
>>>
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 20:08:46 UTC

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