Re: Range of Security : Nonce

On 23 April 2014 11:41, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 2014-04-23 11:29, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23 April 2014 02:56, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:
> msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 04/19/2014 10:49 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >     > Or is there a downside to those types that I'm just completely
> blind
> >     > to?
> >     >
> >     > I would be quite happy to use any of those types.  But the "range"
> >     > of nonce is limited to string.  So if I did so, I would be
> violating
> >     > the ontology.
> >
> >     I wouldn't put too much authority into the current vocabulary. If the
> >     range of nonce in the Security vocabulary is preventing you from
> getting
> >     something useful done, we should probably change the acceptable
> ranges
> >     for nonce.
> >
> >     Perhaps we should expand it to allow xsd:string, xsd:base64, and
> >     xsd:hexBinary. Would that work for you, Melvin?
> >
> >
> > Perfect!
>
> May I ask how a receiver is supposed to understand what the actual coding
> is?
> Is coding a part of the message as well?  Seems a bit complicated in my
> opinion.
>
> If there are no other constraints (which I know nothing about), I would
> select
> either string or base64.  Base64 is simpler since UTF-8 characters are
> somewhat difficult to deal with since they can be 1-3 bytes long.
>

Sure, in Linked data any literal can have a type.  In this case the type
will be xsd : hexBinary

This is already baked into JSON LD which is one advantage over other
serializations


>
> Anders
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >     -- manu
> >
> >     --
> >     Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> >     Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> >     blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
> >     http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
> >
> >
>
>