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:em...@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 | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
