I guess each copy, whether changed or not, should have a pointer to its original. I wonder if any vobject version should not have it's versions "inside" it, but simply have a pointer to it's predecessor (or the other way around, an object has links to all its derivatives). Then you can have different sites for different versions.
Then, while you can't cryptographically verify the derivative, you can verify its original, and compare them to see if they are the same data or diferent. Reed On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 03:48:38PM -0500, Len Bullard wrote: > Understood completely and I know how SSL, checksums, asymmetric keys, etc > work but without the understanding that content drifting away from its > original sources corrupts means the buyer doesn't understand the technical > solution is not the whole solution. > > In effect, regardless of the wrapper, unless you have the original 1959 > first episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle, you probably can't answer those > trivia question correctly. If you don't have the authentication and > authorization, you don't have access to the original source. If you don't > have the digital signature and checksum technology, I can't trust your > answers without the original sources. This is the real problem of named > data sharing. Otherwise, URIs with registries make the name sharing easy, > and the rest is authentication, authorization, signatures, etc. I don't > think the problem of discoverability is as big as the speaker believes it > is. > > It isn't just trust. It's verification. For that, you must have an > authentic copy of the original source or access which amounts to the same > thing but if access, you have to prove that. Names alone won't make that > happen. > > len > _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d