- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:35:17 +0200
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Mar 24, 2004, at 18:28, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Chris Bizer wrote: > >>>> Using signatures also don't make signing agents special (=owners), >>>> because >>>> several agent can sign the same named graph instance. >>> >>> True, and then they are joint owners/publishers, if that signing >>> occurs >>> in the graph itself. >>> >> Initial comment: The signature of a graph can not be included into >> the graph >> for technical reasons. >> Signing a graph works the following way: >> 1. You take a graph >> 2. You calculate the hash of it >> 3. then you encrypt the hash using your private key. >> Having the signature inside the graph makes it impossible to >> calculate the >> hash, because things are getting circular. > > This doesn't matter you just need to exclude that triple (the one with > the signature) as a special case ... maybe it's better to replace the > triple with an empty signature triple ... > > _:w swp:signature ""^^xsd:base64Encoded . > > then it is clear where you need to put it back again. > I like this better than my bnode value. It's more precise. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 05:06:16 UTC