W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:44:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMR8oe1_Hf0HMn-8NKTEo2SNDPTj4N_cx6zo8xte3q0Kj-Di-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
+1 to cert:publicKey
El 10/10/2011 18:38, "Henry Story" <henry.story@gmail.com> escribió:

> 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/
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 17:45:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:47 UTC