W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: what are claims mirrors?

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:05:35 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <7A9D591E-9B57-4A48-98A3-7A4749448048@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 17 Jan 2012, at 00:27, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 1/16/12 4:48 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2012, at 21:46, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 1/16/12 2:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> We are all endowed with the ability to describe the same concepts slightly differently based, on our backgrounds and target audiences. This capability ultimately makes the end product richer, especially when it brings others to the fold that would erstwhile not make obvious connections.
>> Yes, but if people keep defining new words every few minutes, then we end up just confusing each other.
> But that really isn't the case. Terminology is how one communicates to a given audience. Terminology and audiences go hand in hand. Semantic Web and Linked Data parlance is quite esoteric when you factor in the broader broader user and developer profiles. Sticking to esoteric terminology under all circumstances leads to the "too provincial" stigma that already undermines most things associated with "The Semantic Web".
> BTW - Why did you build a Babel Fish as opposed to asking the world to coalesce around specific English words and phrases?

I don't think you have any idea how much time and work it took to put the tools for BabelFish together. The company called Systran who wrote the software started in the 60ies writing translation machines. The translation produced by the BabelFish was not that good either, which is why I called in BabelFish, so that people would not take it too seriously. Anyway the AltaVista babel fish appeared 30 years after the company had started.

> [snip]
>>  Here we are trying to work out how to integrate new ideas and make sure that things can work together, to write a good document so that other communities can join easily.
>> And it helps me to understand what a claim mirror may be when I am following a conversation here.
>> As far as I see you have the following triples
>> <http://joe.example/#joe>  cert:key key ;
>>            owl:sameAs<http://other.place/som/doc#123>  .
>> and exactly the same triples are published:
>> 1. in the corresponding certificate - but with ASN.1 format
>> 2. at<http://joe.example/>
>>    or whatever is the :sense of<http://joe.example/#joe>
>> 3. at<http://other.place/som/doc>
>>    or whatever is the :sense of<http://other.place/som/doc#123>
>> Is that correct?
> There are a set of claims in an x.509 certificate (expressed in ASN.1). There are set of claims in a Profile Document (expressed in RDF). Semantically, they are mirrors i.e., they hold equivalent claims discernible to humans and machines.

Ok, so I take you to be agreeing with me that the above example is the prototype  example of the mirrored claims that interest us. Your prototype would be with only one SAN in the certificate, Peter Williams would be with 2 SANs in the certificate. But we get the gist right? If we start off with the X509 certificate with n Subject Alternative NAmes, then the mirrored claims idea is that each SAN's :sense documents, i.e.. the WebID profile for that WebID, publish the relation to the public key and the owl:sameAs relations to the other SANs. IT is not really a full mirror, as there are a lot of things in the X509 certificate that are not published in the other formats. 

We should add this to the Wiki then

Perhaps this would then be the minimum procedure we need. When people come up with new terminology, or when it is not clear, we should add the word to the wiki with some definitions and examples.

Also it would be good to learn to get to these definitions quickly.

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:06:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:55 UTC