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

[Henry Story]

On 13 Oct 2011, at 20:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> 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

ok +2 then for honesty and participating. ;-) 

But would you put in in your foaf file? That's worth an extra point.

Henry


> 
> 
> - Jonas
> 
> -- 
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> 
> [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/