[foaf-protocols] Vote: public_key, publicKey, hasPublicKey, pubKey
dr at jones.dk
Thu Oct 13 20:09:13 CEST 2011
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
> 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:
* 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
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20111013/57556406/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the foaf-protocols