W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Graphs vs. Authorities vs. Warrants vs. Authentication vs. Certification etc.

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:33:08 +0200
Message-Id: <0C8CB8FE-7980-11D8-A9CA-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ext Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@aliceposta.it>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-archive@w3.org, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>


On Mar 19, 2004, at 10:26, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
>> hence I suggest inverting that property making
>> it
>>
>> swp:graphOfWarrant     @@ change name
>>     a rdf:Property ;
>>     rdfs:comment "The subject is a warrant by which the object graph 
>> can
>> be authenticated and
>>                   its assertional status and asserting or originating
>> authority determined." ;
>>     rdfs:range rdfg:Graph ;
>>     rdfs:domain swp:Warrant ;
>>     owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:int . @@ sic
>
> Looks OK to me.
>
> Though perhaps just swp:graph is enough, since the domain/range make
> the rest clear.
>
> (I tend to prefer having predicates that closely match the range. I've
> found that users grok an ontology much better when things line up
> mnemmonically in that fashion)
>
>>

Just to be pedantic, giving us:

:G (

      some:resource some:property some:value .

      [  a swp:Warrant ;
         swp:graph :G ;
         swp:assertingAuthority ex:Bob ;
         swp:signature "..."^^sig:PGPSignature .
         swp:certificate "..." .
         swp:certificationAuthority <http://www.certificates-R-us.com> .
      ]

      [  a swp:Warrant ;
         swp:graph :G ;
         swp:authority ex:Bill ;
         swp:signature "..."^^sig:X509Signature .
      ]

      [  a swp:Warrant ;
         swp:graph :G ;
         swp:assertingAuthority ex:Mary ;
         swp:signature "..."^^xyz:XYZSignature ;
         xyz:policy xyz:blargh .
      ]

)

... er... what to do about

      :G swp:warrant 
<http://www.foo.bar.com/us282uss82wsauia9whjrui.wnt> .

???

Oops! There go our external warrants! Then again, that might not be such
a big deal...

Or do we really have to constrain each warrant to a single graph in the
swp: ontology itself -- since each warrant's signature is graph 
specific,
there is simply no utility/means to have the same warrant authenticate
two different graphs -- so perhaps the swp:warrant property is OK and
the limitation to a single graph is enforced by the nature of the
signature rather than by OWL semantics.

Eh?

Patrick


--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 03:37:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC