RE: include privat ekeys Re: rsa ontology in cert namespace

Certification, certifying,   ... Just not certificate/cert. cert means something specific to a billion devices (or more). Make a clean break. W3C culture needs to get past its long term, passive agressive , rather whiny attitudes towards certs. Just define a new culture, and then work the W3C magic. if the tuning and timing is right, it will take off. There is no harm in creating a world in which the hosting of a (foaf card ) resource on an https endpoint is deemed an act, by the owner/controller of that website under its security policy,  of certification. The result is a certified record. If the resource is removed, from the journaled repository underling the resource management system, the document is no longer certified. That is unavailable becuyase the https endpoint is broken, this means the certified record is unavailable for reading (and nothing more). If said record (of realtime, ongoing certification) is not only minted as described above but is record-ed, US folks even have an (awful) term for that : recordation. One example of a recordation process is to assign a URN (persistent URI) to a document in which the certified record is embeded, and then wot-sign the "ontology" - a specific value ontology derived from the type ontology. If said document of recordation were to be hosted on a https endpoint, it would become a certified recordation record. The moment its removed from the repository... the recordation is no longer being certified (though its status as a recordation is unaffected). If the https endpoints is merley unabailable, then the certified recordation is merely unavailable. Consult an academic law professor in fraud law, if you want. Folks there are just as analytical as folks here, Ive found. They will not be changing legal frameworks to suit technology wording, or conceptual frameworks, note. One might as well fit in with their descriptive frameworks.; if one wants social adoption by business and commerce. If you are in this to be a Trot, becuase you are still 20 and full of social change angst still, then dont.  > Subject: Re: include privat ekeys Re: rsa ontology in cert namespace
> From: henry.story@bblfish.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:05:48 +0100
> CC: home_pw@msn.com; public-xg-webid@w3.org
> To: mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk
> 
> 
> 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/
>