W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Poisonous models (was the bad word)

From: Daniël Bos <corani@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:02:45 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimv28MEGW4usnCIVDLo9da9kibYAGvbx7_c_ngI@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On the topic of "Everybody called 'Dave' is the same person", I could
imagine dbpedia saying that all these Dave's are distinct (using e.g.
owl:differentFrom) (they don't, but maybe they should!), which means if you
accept dbpedia, you can't at the same time accept dave.rdf.

I'm pretty sure that big players will store their data in (at least) quads,
to include the source of the triples. This means they can collect data from
the internet, and at a later time decide about the trustworthiness of the
source. I can imagine for example, that they will only accept sources that
don't contradict. The more statements your model has that contradict the
already collected body of statements, the less likely your model will be
accepted.

It would still be indexed however, so arguably you could ask questions like
"Which sources claim that 'Dave A.' is the same as 'Dave B.'?"

Daniel

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 23:58, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Sure, Nathan may be.
> But Richard and Toby moved into the poisoning world.
> You can only use the techniques you describe if you have concepts of where
> things can/can't come from.
> And as Toby says, if Google (or Sindice) took this...
> What does happen if Sindice accepts this document?
>
> Hugh
>
> On 18 Jul 2010, at 05:54, "Daniël Bos" <corani@gmail.com<mailto:
> corani@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I think Nathan isn't talking about poisoning models (which could be
> prevented using reification, or using quads, which include the source of the
> statement, and then only trust selected statements), but about the problem
> of giving spammers a tool to much easier collect email and postal addresses
> from the web, by simply parsing pages instead of scraping and somehow
> detecting the information.
>
> Though I can see the danger in that, I personally don't think it is that
> much of an issue, since email addresses have always been easy to scrape, and
> postal addresses are in most cases easy to collect from e.g. business
> directories. Semantic markup makes it easier, but those wanting to collect
> this kind of data could and would do that anyway.
>
> --
> With kind regards,
> Daniël Bos
>
> On Jul 18, 2010 12:55 AM, "Hugh Glaser" <<mailto:hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> You better hope your system can cope with this.
> <http://data.totl.net/dave.rdf>http://data.totl.net/dave.rdf
>
> Hugh
>
> On 17 Jul 2010, at 11:35, "Nathan" <<mailto:nathan@webr3.org>
> nathan@webr3.org<mailto:nathan@webr3.org>> wrote:
>
> > So, after seeing this question on s...
>



-- 
Best regards,
Met vriendelijke groet,

Daniël Bos

--
T: +31 318 711 063
T: +86 18 701 330 737
E: corani@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 07:42:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:28 UTC