Re: Cert Ontology and WebKeys (Re: WebID History - is also: Webid Editor/Author issue)

On 3 June 2013 14:43, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

JSON LD is last call to be a REC, so it's worth understanding.  You
wouldn't want unkind people here calling you a noob :P

http://json-ld.org/primer/latest/


>
> 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
>

Sure, there's a difference to referring to something in an example, and
mandating it, as the domain of cert:key does, and that is the predicate
used in the sparql in the spec.  I think the sec ontology just leaves the
domain blank, which is more flexible imho.  Didnt a wise man once say, dont
constrain unless you need to constrain :)


>   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.
>

Yes, BUT you'd need to then change the sparql in webid+TLS to reflect that
in order for the auth to be consistent.  That also means changing all the
implementations (maybe with the exception of openlink)


>
>   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 .
>

Yes, but most tooling deals quite well with DER.


>
>    One could add the parallels as owl:equivalentClass to our ontology (
> after verification ).
>

That could work ...


>
>
> Henry
>
> >
> >
> > Henry
> >
> >
> > Social Web Architect
> > http://bblfish.net/
> >
> >
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>