Re: [foaf-protocols] [foaf-dev] FOAF sites offline during cleanup

Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 27/4/09 10:18, Ian Davis wrote:
>   
>> Dan,
>>
>> Sorry to hear about the attack on your server. If there's anything I or
>> Talis can do to help, just let me know.
>>     
>
> Thanks!
>
>   
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org
>> <mailto:danbri@danbri.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thanks everyone for the concern and offers of help. It'll take a few
>>     days to figure out the best way to make the Web side of the project more
>>     helpable. In the meantime http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ is worth
>>     some attention!
>>
>>
>> With the lessening emphasis on RDF/XML, shouldn't we be looking at
>> signing the triples. I seem to recall a paper by Jeremy Carroll that
>> discussed this. Also, now many of us are focussed on bnode-free linked
>> data the problems of signing are much easier: serialise as ntriples,
>> sort and sign the result.
>>     
>
> A lot of the hairyness of xmlsig comes from the transforms. I prefer 
> signing something nice and concrete, whether XML, RDFa or JSON.
>
> What % of "linked data" is truly free of bnodes?
>   
Dan,

I would safely say re. LOD Cloud somewhere north of 80% :-) And thats 
primary due to the content coming from PingTheSemanticWeb, otherwise I 
would say 90% and higher. The "Linked Data" meme has always encouraged 
URIs for everything.

Kingsley
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 10:58:14 UTC