W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Proof of Concept: Identity Credentials Login

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:11:04 -0400
Message-ID: <53A19DF8.6050802@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webpayments@w3.org
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 

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.


-- 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).



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

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 14:11:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:31 UTC