[foaf-protocols] Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 11-10-13 at 07:47pm, Henry Story wrote:
> 
> On 13 Oct 2011, at 19:26, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 
> > On 11-10-13 at 02:16pm, Henry Story wrote:
> >> Of course publishing private keys is not a good idea.
> > 
> > Agreed, but is the protocol only for things public?
> > 
> > Some people consider it unsuitable to publish even IDs of their friends.
> 
> Well that's why I think it may not be a bad idea to have the same relation for both.
> 
> :me cert:key :privateKey 
> 
> could be in my local protected store
> 
> :me cert:key :publicKey 
> 
> on my profile .
> 
> So of course one would then need a relation to tie the two keys together. Not sure which way would be best. Perhaps in the private store something like
> 
> :privateKey cert:public :publicKey .
> 
> or one could have a relation that goes both ways (symmetric)
> 
> :privateKey cert:paired :privateKey .
> :privateKey cert:paired :publicKey .
> 
> So that would be another thing to work on and add to the ontology perhaps.
> 
> Anyway, are you happy with 
> 
>    cert:key
> 
> Do you give it +1 or +10 points ? (The more points the more you need to contribute :-)

Yes, I kinda figured that already - and as my skills are in 
distributing, not pioneering code.

I do like it, just feel my vote has no weight. So here you go:

+0


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20111013/57556406/attachment-0001.pgp