- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:25:35 +0200
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
- Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 It may be good to be consistent with other ontologies e.g. http://payswarm.com/vocabs/security so cert:publicKey +1 I see the point about confusion, but Java uses Double and double, for class and literal, and tho it is confusing, I think still usable > > 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/ > >
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 17:26:03 UTC