Re: Summary of cert : key Domain discussion

[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/