RE: REQDOC: Need final input!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Not to split hairs, but the wording in the last line of Jeff Heflin's
text might raise some flags. "It should be straightforward" may
suggest we don't understand the basis of the interaction between XML
Signatures and OWL. 

I recommend wording to the effect of:
...
"XML Signatures and cononicalization transformations can be applied
safely to OWL expressions because OWL conforms to the XML standard."

- -Ned
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:37 PM
> To: Dan Connolly; Jeff Heflin
> Cc: WebOnt
> Subject: Re: REQDOC: Need final input!
> 
> 
> At 4:33 PM -0600 2/26/02, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 10:09, Jeff Heflin wrote:
> >[...]
> >>  6) "Integration of digital signatures" - Dan Connolly had 
> volunteered to
> >>  provide alternate wording.
> >
> >Crud... sorry... in case this is still helpful:
> >
> >	The W3C XML Digital Signature specification is
> >	an important building block for communication among
> >	untrusted parties, which is important for many
> >	ontology applications [, for example, ...?].
> >	It should be straightforward to use XML Signatures
> >	with OWL.
> >
> 
> all of the use cases need digital sigs, but the agents and ubiq 
> computing probably the most of all of the ones in the current use 
> cases, so I think if we just left out the missing "for example"
> from  this and included those two as the motivators, this would be
> a good  change
>   -JH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler				  
> hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  
> 301-405-6707 (Fax)
> AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  
> College Park, MD 20742
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBPHwhnxdTablCCzU/EQLsNgCfY4IIhlsV3196J7MUJ7O2yB4p784AoMe3
b/0dZCQFuwWMlc6lGt4OIbx5
=yFmZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 19:00:55 UTC