- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:05:48 +0100
- To: Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 23 Nov 2011, at 20:00, Mo McRoberts wrote: > > On 23 Nov 2011, at 18:42, Peter Williams wrote: > >> >> Stop calling a "cert" ontology too, since it precious little to do with certificates - as anyone understands the term. The bindings are not signed, and in RDF land show no sign of being signed in the next decade. > > +1 > > People have enough trouble understanding the difference between certificates and keys as it is. > > (RDF signing is nontrivial, because ideally you want to sign the graph, not the specific serialisation; in order to sign, you need consistent ordering of triples, and the only way you can order triples with bnodes as the subject is by their content… arriving at a consistent a graph consisting solely of bnodes isn't entirely straightforward, particularly if there are any referencing 'loops'). Mh it's a cert ontology because - we will be able to use it to describe certificates. - we are self-certifying - the foaf profile server over https is signed - by the web server. Though the content is not certified. Otherwise what do you propose? The namespace is http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert and so it has "cert" in it. Perhaps the certitude ontology? Henry > > M. > > -- > Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space, > 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E, > Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ > > > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 19:06:18 UTC