- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:14:34 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote: > Just to de-lurk, yes this all makes sense. One technique that I believe > to be deployable (even if a pragmatic hack) is PGP signing RDF files. > For eg see http://usefulinc.com/foaf/signingFoafFiles > > PGP only assures that the file hasn't been changed since the signer > interacted with it, doesn't assure that the signer asserts it. My > working guess is that, if the doc itself claims that the signer is its > creator, that is enough to bootstrap the claim that the signer asserts > the triples encoded in the rdf/xml. Potentially tenuous but I can't > think of how else to roll this stuff out... > > Dan > My guess is that with only a little bit of common practice to that effect, that this would stand up in a court of law. A digital signature is a pretty heavy duty device and is already understood as the analog of a written signature - and if the RDF stacks up as saying affirmed by Jeremy and I have digitally signed it as Jeremy, I think I would have a hard time trying to repudiate it. Jeremy (not digitally signed, not affirmed, take it or leave it!)
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 16:15:07 UTC