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

Re: Proposed draft RDF Graph vocabulary

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:35:17 +0200
Message-Id: <B9F44EA4-7E3F-11D8-80E3-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


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

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