- From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:37:57 +0200
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Coming back to the graph/warrant cardinality question: > > 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 Our signature method defines three things: 1. The graph/graphset canonicalization method (e.g. what Jeremy proposed in his signing RDF paper) 2. The hash function for hashing the canonicalized graph/grapset 3. The Signature algorithm for signing the hash value. There is no problem in defining a canonicalization method for graphsets, thus it is also possible to sign them. In order to avoid unnecessary metadata, I still think we should loosen the cardinality between graph and warrant. Another argument is compatibility, XML Signature also allows signing several resources at once. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> 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> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:38 AM Subject: Re: Warrent or PublishingEvent or Commitment and Cardinality > > 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 Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:36:10 UTC