- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:43:50 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On 3 Jun 2013, at 14:24, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 3 June 2013 14:15, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2013, at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think the core WebID identity spec remains largely consistent in both cases. >> >> So which ontology you use depends on your needs. >> >> If you want to guarantee auth over x.509 with rsa and foaf, you can use Henry's ontology >> >> If you want to guarantee auth / signing / encryption / payments use manu's > > What is the URL of the ontology? I can't find it. > > There's more than one linked from https://payswarm.com/specs/source/web-keys/ > > But I think the main one that should be interesting is: > > https://w3id.org/security That seems to be it. I can't read JSON-LD yet, so I can't comment on the ontology. It would be nice if they had content negotiation and served different representation. A couple of things: 1. I note that they refer to the foaf ontology. So I have no idea why in your previous mail you were arguing that Manu could not work with us because of the foaf ontology 2. It looks like if we publish an ontology for the DSA and other algorithms, then the two ontologies would be complementary and not even overlap. There is some stuff on signatures, but I'd like to be sure that works with Turtle as well as any other format. Note that their Keys are not http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#Key s. Their Keys are our http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#Certificate , encoded furthermore in DER . One could add the parallels as owl:equivalentClass to our ontology ( after verification ). Henry > > > Henry > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 12:44:29 UTC