Re: First working prototype - Was: Re: Triplification of bugs in UDD
On 03/09/09 at 17:15 +0200, Olivier Berger wrote:
> Le jeudi 03 septembre 2009 à 16:33 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > On 03/09/09 at 15:25 +0200, Olivier Berger wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 03 septembre 2009 à 14:29 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > > On 28/07/09 at 20:13 +0200, Olivier Berger wrote:
> > > > > Only small minor additions to the postgres DB are necessary to make
> > > > > triplify work : a sha1 function and a table to match emails to their
> > > > > sha1 mailto: hashes.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand how you plan to use this. If we have a table
> > > > with all the sha1 hashes for email addresses in UDD, it will be
> > > > straightforward to get the email address for a particular sha1.
> > >
> > > IIRC, what we want to do is to use the SHA1(mailto:email@domain.com)
> > > results as components of the Semantic Web resources URIs to easily find
> > > person's related facts, with a URI compatible syntax, and both some kind
> > > of anonymity.
> > > As an example we could imagine something like <http://udd.debian.org/resources/account/6688a14521cd97db162af8f9757f2e2232300e50>
> > > as being one of my emails/accounts URI to fetch Debian facts about me
> > > (like the bugs I reported, etc.).
> > >
> > > So if there's a table that directly maps those SHA1 of the mailto:email
> > > of the current carnivore_email and of the current bugs:submitter, that
> > > will be really straightforward to make the query and format the results
> > > as RDF.
> > >
> > > I hope I understood your question and responded to it, although I'm not
> > > completely sure (too much brain overload).
> >
> > Oh, so the idea is to never export email addresses in RDF, but only sha1
> > hashes of email addresses. To make this easier, the DB will contain a
> > mapping between emails sha1s.
> >
> > Is it really necessary to hide them behind sha1 hashes? If the only
> > concern is anonymity, I'm not sure that we should hide email addresses.
> > After all, all the information is already public and easy to browse. See
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=lucas%40lucas-nussbaum.net,
> > for example.
>
> That's not absolutely necessary, and agree on the fake anonymity, but
> that's a usual habit in FOAF instead of plain email :
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_mbox_sha1sum
>
> In the absence of an express consent of the Debian reporters to see
> their plain emails in such RDF, maybe that's a wise default to use
> SHA1... until people complain and plain email seems more useful.
>
> >
> > Regarding URI-compatibility, wouldn't it be possible to use
> > lucas%40lucas-nussbaum.net instead of a hash?
>
> I suppose. Maybe once/if this is necessary/allowed only ?
>
> In any case, the SHA1 is useful to match FOAF profiles with bug reports.
> So even if you don't know the person's email and they just present their
> FOAF "identity" to you : you'll still be able to fetch their bugs anyway
> (and know their email, then, but you may not be forced to display it in
> such case ;).
>
> Hope this is clearer now.
OK.
Do you want a seperate table with (email, sha1) columns, or _email_sha1
columns everywhere (e.g maintainer_email_sha1) ?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: