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

Re: Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:16:21 +0200
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <588A84C9-3494-4B2F-AE6C-9FDDEBAD0CC4@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>

On 10 Oct 2011, at 19:44, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> +1 to cert:publicKey.
> 
what should we call the class of public keys then? We can change its name since that class is never used and in order to avoid types.  Currently it is a cert:PublicKey .  But perhaps instead we should think of the relation we are trying to describe more clearly

Since we are describing the relation of an agent to a key, we may put the relation in terms of the epistemological state that relates them. Because after all what we are affirming is that the agent has knowledge of the private key of the given public key.

  cert:knows
  cert:knowsKey
  cert:controlsKey

is there a better name for that type of relation?


> 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/
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/


Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 18:17:06 UTC

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