Re: Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM, 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
>

Not a fan of pubKey, it's just another derivative of PublicKey, if we're
going to use pubKey, we might as well stick to publicKey (why would the
property be pubkey and the class PublicKey, and not the other way around?).
Several vocabs have ambiguous relations which may sound like classes:
foaf:account, foaf:member, schema:image.

FOAF made foaf:holdsAccount archaic (deprecated) in favor of foaf:account.

After thinking about it after the call today, I'm for publicKey. The tests
should catch the implementation lower/uppercase errors.

Steph.


>
> 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/
>
>