[foaf-protocols] WebID Protocol / WOT Ontology
henry.story at bblfish.net
Mon Sep 20 10:44:12 CEST 2010
On 20 Sep 2010, at 10:37, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 20 September 2010 10:33, Henry Story <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2010, at 08:54, Toby Inkster wrote:
>>> The three routes forward would be:
>>> 1. To keep the status quo (cert:identity);
>>> 2. To switch to cert:hasKey; or
>>> 3. To allow both/either.
>> I quite like the notion of having cert:hasKey as a discussion
>> for the standard ontology. cert:identity was never that well
>> thought through . It seems to have worked. I think it makes
>> certain indexing of triples stores necessary, where they perhaps
>> don't have to be, and also it disperses information a bit in
>> a foaf file.
>> There may be many better names than cert:hasKey
>> could be a lot more helpful in explaining what is going on,
>> though it is perhaps not true that everyone knows the private
>> Perhaps it is wrong to say that someone has a key, especially a
>> public one, since everyone could have that key.
>> There are many better ways one can do this. Is this something
>> implementors are willing to change? Is this issue important
> I'm willing to make the changes. Would like to get this part optimal
> because it leads on to all sorts of signing/WOT/assertion technology -- ie
> you can make statements independent of a server ... this will become
> invaluable later down the line, IMHO.
cert:canUnlock would just be the inverse of the current cert:identity.
So how does it make anything possible that was not possible before?
Social Web Architect
More information about the foaf-protocols