- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:38:29 +0300
- To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Apr 07, 2004, at 18:44, ext Chris Bizer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I had a look at the swp.rdfs schema and > > > > 1. I'm thinking now that "PublishingEvent" is too restrictive. Somebody > might name an publish a graph. Somebody else might quote it, a third > person > might also assert it ... So what about calling the thing "Commitment", > a > term which is open for all kinds of relationsships, even others beside > of > asserting and quoting. I'm really liking "Certification", (or else "Voucher"). I think commitment may suggest alot more legal machinery (or need for comprehensive explainations) than we want to bother with... > > > > 2. Patrick's comment in the schema defines the cardinality between a > "warrent" or whatever it is called and a graph as a one-to-one > relation. Given that a signature in a warrant/certification would be graph specific, I'm not sure how this relationship wouldn't be percieved to be one-to-one (not that I think the language of the comment necessarily states so strict a cardinality). > I > think there are many situations, where you want to attach several > graphs to > one warrent, e.g. your are a information intermediary and you want to > say > that you quote all the 500 graphs you pass on. But how would you sign the warrant? Patrick > Or you want to assert a more > complex rule set consisting of many interrelated graphs. Having > separate > warrents in these cases just unnecessarily blows up the metadata. > There is > also no problem with signing several graphs at once because the > SignatureMethod can define how the graph set gets canonialized. > > > > So we could define: > > > > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&swp;/Commitment"> > <rdfs:label>Commitment</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment> > A relationship between an authority and one or more graphs, in which > the > authority commits itself in > some way to the graphs. Commitments may include a digital signature by > the > authority. > </rdfs:comment> > </rdfs:Class> > > > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> > To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > Cc: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>; "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:25 PM > Subject: Re: rewrites for paper sections > > >> >> On Apr 07, 2004, at 15:58, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> >>> We should consider whether Warrant is misnamed: possible other names: >>> Publication >>> PublishingEvent >> >> I don't think that the warrant (or whatever it is) equates to >> a publication event. The latter requires more than just the >> association of authority, signature, certificate, etc. with >> a graph -- i.e. the graph also has to be, er, published. >> >> It's really a kind of stamp, signette (sp?), brand, etc. of >> the graph which can be authenticated, and thereby allow the >> graph to be authenticated. I.e. a certificate of authenticity. >> >> (too bad Certificate is so overused...) >> >> It's a tool used in publication, not the publication itself. >> >> But I'm quite open to alternatives to Warrant. >> >> Can't think of any at the moment though... >> >> Patrick >> >>> >>> ... ??? >>> >>> Jeremy > > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 01:39:54 UTC