Re: Domain of :key

On 29 March 2013 09:52, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 29 Mar 2013, at 09:21, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29 March 2013 09:14, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29 Mar 2013, at 08:53, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 March 2013 08:37, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Mar 2013, at 10:42, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently we have:
>>>
>>>     rdfs:domain foaf:Agent;
>>>
>>> This seems slightly restrictive.
>>>
>>> Many things can have a key, e.g. a certificate, an account, an app etc.
>>> Agent perhaps does not cover every conceivable use case?
>>>
>>>
>>> You can create new relations to relate those things to keys if you need
>>> to.
>>>
>>>   foaf:primaryTopic can relate a document keys it is about for example.
>>>
>>> We need a relation to relate the agent that is the one that controls the
>>> private key
>>> of the public key to the public key, as that is what WebID
>>> authentication and most
>>> other protocols need to work.
>>>
>>
>> In bitcoin users have a pseudo anonymous account.  Each account has a key
>> pair.  It would be great to be able to model this.
>>
>>
>> Why could one not think of an account as an Agent? It can transfer money,
>> it can accept payments, etc... It is a micro agent related to you.
>>
>
> Ah OK, if an agent can also be an account, that works.
>
>
> It depends of course on what the bitcoint:Account thing is that you are
> speaking of.
> And one would need to  compare that to the definition of foaf:Agent.
>
> Say for sake of argument that you think of such an account more as a
> bucket, in which you
> can add money like you could add water to a bucket, and from which you can
> remove money
> as you could pour water out of a bucket into someone else's glass. Here
> thinking of the bucket as
> an Agent does not sound right.
>

This is a great analogy.  Each bitcoin account is like a bucket that
contains 0 or more bitcoins.

It makes no assumptions whatsoever about ownership.  Indeed, there need be
no concept of ownership.


>
> Then you can think of the access to the bucket as being restricted to
> certain
> agents. In which case you can use the Web Access Control vocabulary.
>
>  http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl
>
> The wac ontology relates an Agent(a), a resource, and actions that can be
> done on those
> resources.
>
> So there are a number of ways of relating different things. One does not
> need to use cert:key
> for each of these ways of relating them.
>

It would be great if I could say

<> a foaf : OnlineAccount
  cert : key [ ... ]

Independent of any ownership details.


>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> It's perhaps the most serious use of PKI on the web after ecommerce.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the parent of Agent an owl : Thing?
>>>
>>>
>>>     Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>