- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:40:43 -0500
- To: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Cc: "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Ned, > > 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 What about the capability for OWL to deal with trust/provenance issues? If anyone can say anything about anything (using RDF), we need a way to decide what to reason about, that is, assertions might be filtered by XML sigs etc. I certainly don't understand all the ways XML Sigs might interact with OWL. In any case I hope such usage would be straightforward. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 19:43:26 UTC