- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:11:04 -0400
- To: public-webpayments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53A19DF8.6050802@openlinksw.com>
On 6/17/14 9:09 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > Signing named graphs comes into play when you need to do things like > provenance in payments: It comes into play when you build any kind of system where auditing, non repudiation, identity etc.. are crucial. Methinks, every kind of system that involves money. That said, it has nothing to do with TURTLE and everything to do with Statement Reification. A simple way to look at Reification (as I already sense the RDF reification vocabulary perturbations to come) is as follows: Today, we've all signed contracts that take at least one of the following forms: 1. terms of reference and clauses, with a single signature placeholder at the end of the contract -- i.e., you sign in one place for the entire document 2. terms of reference and signed (or at least initialized) clauses -- i.e., you sign each clause in addition to signing the main document signature slot. When you reify RDF statements [1] you end up with #2. Links: [1] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rvguha/schemaorg/master/data/schema.rdfa -- example of Statement reification using Schema.org's HTML+RDFa based vocabulary doc -- note that each embedded RDF statement could be denoted by a blank node or an HTTP URI (we opted for 5-Star Linked Data URIs). -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 14:11:27 UTC