Re: Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

On 11 Oct 2011, at 23:31, Daniel E. Renfer wrote:

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

one can do it like this.

:me cert:pk [ a cert:PublicKey;
              cert:privateKey [ a cert:PrivateKey ]
            ] .



> 
> 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

Ok, but what about the name clash?

> 
> 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/
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 21:38:22 UTC