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

WebID-ISSUE-11 (bblfish): define an inverse of cert:identity [ontologies]

From: WebID Incubator Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 02:18:27 +0000
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PjMrz-0002zB-HI@stu.w3.org>

WebID-ISSUE-11 (bblfish): define an inverse of cert:identity [ontologies]


Raised by: Henry Story
On product: ontologies

A proposal for a definition of a relation from the agent to the public key that is the inverse of cert:identity. 

It seems like it should be more natural to have a relation from an agent to a number of his public keys.
Home pages usually have the main topic being a person, and then will list his public keys. Currently the cert identity relation needs to be specified for each key in notations like rdf/xml or turtle. There one must write things like

[] a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
  rsa:modulus 123123123...;
  rsa:public_exponent 55000;
  cert:identity :me.

[] a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
    rsa:modulus 34958345...;
    rsa:public_exponent 55000;
    cert:identity :me .

Whereas it could be done more nicely with

:me cert:publicKey [  rsa:modulus 123123123...;
                                     rsa:public_exponent 55000 ],
                                  [  rsa:modulus 34958345...;
                                     rsa:public_exponent 55000 ] .

It is true that in rdfa one can use the rel="inverse" construct to get the same effect.

The definition would look something like this

:public_key a rdf:Property;
    vs:term_status "unstable";
    rdfs:label "public_key"@en; 
    owl:inverseOf :identity;
    rdfs:comment """
      a relation from an agent to a public key for which he alone has 
      the private key. This public key identifies that agent, allows him
      to decrypt messages sent to him with that key, and is able to sign
      messages with it too.
    """ ;
   rdfs:domain foaf:Agent;
   rdfs:range :PublicKey .

The cert:identity relation could be deprecated.

What should the relation be called. Something shorter probably.
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 02:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:41 UTC