Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

In today's teleconf we opened the action to vote on the name of the inverse of cert:identity.
This was discussed before. 

The reason for the inverse is that in many foaf profiles we would like to link the WebID directly to the public key, instead of linking what is essentially a complex literal to an object. The object to literal direction would make it easier to write out in many situations.

:me foaf:Person;
   foaf:name "Joe";
   cert:pub..key [ a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
                   ... ],
                  [ a rsa:RSAPublicKey;
                   ....] .

There are two parts of it: one the name, two how it should be integrated into the spec

A. Naming
---------

- cert:public_key
 The current ontology has recently added: 
    http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#public_key
 But as Stephane Corlosquet pointed out, that does not follow our naming conventions. 

- cert:publicKey would follow the naming conventions but it would be too easy to confuse with cert:PublicKey class.

- cert:hasPublicKey is ok, but a bit too long.

- cert:pubKey is nice and short, follows the naming conventions, and

So my vote is for cert:pubKey  +1

B Integration in Spec
---------------------

 Of course adding it to the ontology is not going to instantaneously make every all implementations work with this new relation.
Until they do most people will be right to continue using cert:identity. So the question is who is willing to change their implementation to support both at least for a while?

  So I am currently looking over 3 implementations, and I can put the energy into changing those implementations.

  Who else can commit to this?

Henry



http://www.w3.org/2011/10/10-webid-minutes.html#action05


Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/