- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:37:16 -0500
- To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
- Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <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. I agree. Pat > >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 >> >> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 12:37:18 UTC