[foaf-dev] beyond foaf:mbox_sha1sum

Story Henry henry.story at bblfish.net
Sat Dec 19 17:26:46 CET 2009


I agree. If one is to publish an email address, it may be better to have servers that can content negotiate so as to make that information visible only to trusted agents. And it is not clear at that point what the advantages of sha1sumed mboxes are.


On 19 Dec 2009, at 14:42, Dan Brickley wrote:

> 
> Thoughts on ways forward?
> 
> 1. mark foaf:mbox_sha1sum as archaic

yes

> 2. rewrite http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_mbox_sha1sum to more
> clearly emphasise the risks, and that decision to publish shouldn't be
> made for others

yes

> 3. perhaps remove the owl:InverseFunctionalProperty typing (this will
> help with OWL DL compatibility too)

not sure. It is true that it cannot be a purely inverse functional property, since sha1sums have collisions

> 4. encourage data publishers to assign URIs to account holders
> directly, to indicate openID URIs and other identifying properties as
> users permit

yes. And WebIds.

Henry




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list