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

Re: cert:int -> xsd:nonNegativeInteger

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:06:20 +0200
Cc: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <59E5C5EA-D006-4FA3-9F52-C76AC028EBE7@bblfish.net>
To: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>

On 28 Oct 2011, at 12:45, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:

> I propose remove cert:int datatype from the Cert Ontology and change examples in section 2.3 in WebID spec.
> rsa:public_exponent is always integer >= 0.

it is already defined that way in the ontology.

> There is no need to duplicate this datatype.
> I know that is the argument that cert:int is more flexible writing than xsd:nonNegativeInteger, because it allows white space. But I think that freedom is dangerous, because it is harder to process "  6   5  5 3 7 "^^cert:int then "65537"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger. I think parsers should expect here normal number in base 10 notation.

xsd:int would do too in fact, no need to write xsd:nonNegativeInter. 

The reason cert:int is there is to remove the need to import the xsd namespace too, just for this purpose.
In fact currently cert:int could be thought of as owl:sameAs xsd:nonNegativeInteger .

My implementations usually accept all of cert:int xsd:int xsd:nonNegativeInteger and more ...

see for example:

  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/read-write-web/file/c0bf9b280888/src/main/scala/auth/WebIdClaim.scala#l118

I would like a mathematician cryptographer to let us know how big the public_exponent can become.

So yes, this xsd:int is a bit annoying. So is bringing in a whole new namespace just to write that integer. Of course in n3 it's not a problem you just write

[ cert:public_exponent 65543 ;
  ...]

No need to import a namespace


Henry


> Best,
> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 11:07:03 UTC

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