W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > February 2011

RE: WebID-ISSUE-46: Signing the profile document [research]

From: Toeroek, Laszlo (EXT) <laszlo.toeroek.ext@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:41:47 +0100
To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>, WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BD1D85C35A39E344BBDADB54A998C9430434F788A1@DEFTHW99E84MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
A few more thoughts spawn by those of Reto:

- Granularity: Signing a signle triple maybe an overkill given the overhead the signing adds. Signing in subgraph (a set of triples) however it is done seems more viable.

- Temporal aspect: Should the signing include the point in time the signing took place? Or should that be part of the statement? If the latter is preferred we need too triples. :)
From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Reto Bachmann-Gmür
Sent: Dienstag, 22. Februar 2011 16:13
To: WebID Incubator Group WG; WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker
Subject: Re: WebID-ISSUE-46: Signing the profile document [research]

A few thoughts:
- should we signg the document (as rdf graph?) or a particular representation?
- If the connection is secure and the server-cert trusted document signing isn't needed, if the document is signed we can get profiles over http.
- Maybe it would be easier and more powerfull to support signing particular statements, i.e. Webid-key associations and trust statements. Such signed statements could be aggregated and re-published without the document they were originally published in.


----- Original message -----
> WebID-ISSUE-46: Signing the profile document [research]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/46
> Raised by: Henry Story
> On product: research
> - What use cases would it solve?
> - How would one sign documents?
> - How complicated would it be to put in place?
> - Can one start without signature, and then add information to add
> signatures later on? Or does one have to find a way of stating that
> initially?
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 15:42:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:42 UTC