- From: Chris Bizer <bizer@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:49:11 +0200 (MEST)
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, www-archive@w3.org <www-archive@w3.org>, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, phayes@ihmc.us
Hi Patrick, > > > > Is the diagram all right? > > Looks correct insofar as the RDF schemas are concerned (noting that > it is more constrained than the schemas since certain cardinalities > are not specified in the schemas -- Jeremy, if you could indicate > how to do that property, since I seem to have gotten it wrong > earlier, feel free to do so). Yes, defining these cardinalities sounds like a job for our OWL fraction. > > 1. Do we wish to require swp:signatureMethod if swp:signature is > defined? Yes. It is impossible to express this constraint in the ER diagram. Is it possible with OWL? > 2. Do we wish to limit a warrant to a single signature? Yes. The cardinallity in the diagram is already "?". Would be nice to have the same in the schema. > > > BTW, the updated RDF schema for SWP reflecting the same vocabulary as > Chris' diagram is attached. > > I'm hoping that this is now the final vocabulary. Yes? > Nearly :-) I think we should move to OWL in order to be able to express the cardinality restrictions, or include them at least into the RDFS comments. Other comments see below: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE RDF [ <!ENTITY rdf "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns"> <!ENTITY rdfs "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema"> <!ENTITY xsd "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> <!ENTITY rdfg "http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/rdfg-1"> <!ENTITY swp "http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/swp-1"> ]> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="&rdf;#" xmlns:rdfs="&rdfs;#" xmlns:xsd="&xsd;#" xmlns:rdfg="&rdfg;/" xmlns:swp="&swp;/"> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&swp;/Authority"> <rdfs:label>Authority</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> An authority, or origin, of a graph; such as a person or company. </rdfs:comment> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&swp;/Warrant"> <rdfs:label>Warrant</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> A relationship between an authority and ++++++++++++++++++++ a graph => one or more graphs ++++++++++++++++++++ , in which the authority is in some way an origin of +++++++++++++++++++ that graph. => the graphs +++++++++++++++++++ Warrants may include a digital signature of the graph by the authority. </rdfs:comment> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&swp;/SignatureMethod"> <rdfs:label>Signature Method</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> A method used to construct a signature used to authenticate a graph. </rdfs:comment> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&swp;/assertedBy"> <rdfs:label>asserted by</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> The subject graph ++++++++++++++++++++++ originates from and => delete, because asserting says nothing about who defined the original graph. It is possible that a graph originates from Patrick and I assert it adittionally. ++++++++++++++++++++++ is asserted by the authority specified for the object warrant. The statements expressed in the graph are taken to be claims made by that authority. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdfg;/Graph"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&swp;/Warrant"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&swp;/quotedBy"> <rdfs:label>quoted by</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> ++++++++++++ The subject graph originates from the authority specified for the object warrant. Same comment as above. ++++++++++++ The statements expressed in the graph are not taken to be claims made by that authority, insofar as any statement using this property is concerned. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdfg;/Graph"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&swp;/Warrant"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&swp;/authority"> <rdfs:label>authority</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> The object authority is the origin of the graph with which the subject warrant is associated. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&swp;/Warrant"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&swp;/Authority"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&swp;/signature"> <rdfs:label>signature</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> The object is the signature to be used to authenticate ++++++++++++ the graph => the graphs ++++++++++++ with which the subject warrant is associated. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&swp;/Warrant"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#base64Binary"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&swp;/signatureMethod"> <rdfs:label>signature method</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> The object is the signature method by which the signature specified for the warrant subject was constructed. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&swp;/Warrant"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&swp;/SignatureMethod"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&swp;/certificate"> <rdfs:label>certificate</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> The object is a certificate by which the authority specified for the warrant can be authenticated. </rdfs:comment> +++++++++++++++++ <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&swp;/Warrant"/> Certificates should be linked to authorities (or optionally authority and/or warrant) +++++++++++++++++ <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#base64Binary"/> </rdf:Property> ++++++++++++++++ <swp:SignatureMethod rdf:about="&swp;/X509"> <rdfs:label>X509</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment>X509 Signature Method</rdfs:comment> </swp:SignatureMethod> <swp:SignatureMethod rdf:about="&swp;/PGP"> <rdfs:label>PGP</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment>The PGP Signature Method</rdfs:comment> </swp:SignatureMethod> I think we should wait with instance definitions untill we have defined the additional vocabulary that allows you to specifiy a method as a combination of cantonalization method, hash algo and signature algo. PGP and X509 both allow different hash and sig algo combinations. Thus it is a little unprecise just to say X509. +++++++++++++++++ </rdf:RDF> Chris -- NEU : GMX Internet.FreeDSL Ab sofort DSL-Tarif ohne Grundgebühr: http://www.gmx.net/info
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 09:51:38 UTC