Re: Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

What if I want to also link to my private key? (reasons why that's a bad
idea aside)

If you use pubKey, then it's not clear what you would name the private
version. This isn't an issue with the other ones.

That said, +1 for cert:publicKey

On 10/10/2011 01:44 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> +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/
>>
>>