- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:16:08 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Message-Id: <4D25B448-1C0F-4621-A202-D0A4E7465CF6@bblfish.net>
[melvin sent me a private question, to which I found an answer which I think explains some of the misunderstanding - as Kinglsey correctly guessed earlier, so I am sending it to the list ] On 30 Mar 2013, at 15:03, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > just to note we already have a cert which is a foaf : document having a key ... You mean that an X509 Certicate has a key? An X509 Certificate is a document indeed, and documents ( and only documents ) have semantics. But its semantics is that it defines a thing that has a DistinguishedName, and this thing has a public key. The thing in question has an alternative name that is a URI. The thing is not the document, but the agent. If you want to model that it would be like this <> a X509Certificate; foaf:primaryTopic <ldap:...> . <ldap:...> owl:sameAs <http://your.domain/melvin#me>; cert:key [ .... ] . You can model accounts the same way <> a foaf:Document, foaf:Account; foaf:primaryTopic <#me>; <#me> cert:key [ ... ] . Assuming that accounts are documents, which they may not be, but which you seemed to be assuming at least. >> >> >> On 30 March 2013 14:59, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >> On 30 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Summarizing the thread. >>> >>> I proposed that the Domain of : key be more general than Agent, since a public key is just a number, more than just an agent could have such a key. >> >> The :key relation relates an agent to a public key of which he has the private key. >> This means that one can understand what it is to verify that an agent has a key. >> >>> An example I gave was that an account (e.g. belonging to an agent) could have a key pair. >> >> the whole question is what does it mean to "have a key pair" . >> >>> >>> Henry raised the point that you would then lose an inference that the subject of a key was an Agent. However you should really use rdfs : type for this imho. >> >> My point was that >> - changing the domain means that you have developed a completely different relation which is not the same as cert:key. >> - that it does not make things simpler as you initially claimed it would >> - that it is ill defined >> - that your reasons for wanting to introduces it rely on handwaving some ontology which has not been developed >> - that you can't tell us what it would mean for the relation to apply to inanimate objects >> - that you don't distinguish nonsensical from sensical applications of the term, when it is applied outside of the realm of agents. >> >>> >>> Henry also raised the point that it would be possible to construct triples such as the eiffel tower having a public key. Unsure if this is a big deal, or even a demerit :) >> >> You could not tell us why you thought this was or was not nonsensical, what it would mean, etc... >> >>> >>> There was a small straw poll which was pretty evenly balanced, slightly in favour of keeping the status quo. >>> >>> If there's further interest in this I'll raise an issue at some point. But I think I have enough to model what I want to now. >>> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > > > On 30 March 2013 14:59, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > > On 30 Mar 2013, at 14:45, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Summarizing the thread. >> >> I proposed that the Domain of : key be more general than Agent, since a public key is just a number, more than just an agent could have such a key. > > The :key relation relates an agent to a public key of which he has the private key. > This means that one can understand what it is to verify that an agent has a key. > >> An example I gave was that an account (e.g. belonging to an agent) could have a key pair. > > the whole question is what does it mean to "have a key pair" . > >> >> Henry raised the point that you would then lose an inference that the subject of a key was an Agent. However you should really use rdfs : type for this imho. > > My point was that > - changing the domain means that you have developed a completely different relation which is not the same as cert:key. > - that it does not make things simpler as you initially claimed it would > - that it is ill defined > - that your reasons for wanting to introduces it rely on handwaving some ontology which has not been developed > - that you can't tell us what it would mean for the relation to apply to inanimate objects > - that you don't distinguish nonsensical from sensical applications of the term, when it is applied outside of the realm of agents. > >> >> Henry also raised the point that it would be possible to construct triples such as the eiffel tower having a public key. Unsure if this is a big deal, or even a demerit :) > > You could not tell us why you thought this was or was not nonsensical, what it would mean, etc... > >> >> There was a small straw poll which was pretty evenly balanced, slightly in favour of keeping the status quo. >> >> If there's further interest in this I'll raise an issue at some point. But I think I have enough to model what I want to now. >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Saturday, 30 March 2013 14:58:52 UTC