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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:43:21 +0100
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKENMCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


On datatypes ...

> -----Original Message-----
>
>       :G swp:warrant [
>          a swp:Warrant ;
>          swp:authority ex:Bill ;
>          swp:signature "..."^^sig:X509Signature .
>       ]
>
>       :G swp:warrant [
>          a swp:Warrant ;
>          swp:assertingAuthority ex:Mary ;
>          swp:signature "..."^^xyz:XYZSignature ;
>          xyz:policy xyz:blargh .
>       ]
>


A datatype is useful when you map from a lexical form to a value - I don't
think these datatypes above are doing that ... It is more that this sig is a
binary blob that gets treated in the semantics which discussed the truth of
certain triples, handing that off to the X.509 or PGP or other crypto spec.

However the sig by itself (without the rest of the example) is neither valid
nor invalid. (It is true that only some blobs of binary data are X.509
certificates).

Thus I suggest we use xsd:base64EncodedBinary  (possibly misspelt there)

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 05:44:02 UTC

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