- From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:57:54 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 19, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2004, at 18:30, ext Alberto Reggiori wrote: > >> ... To tackle the provenance aspect/problem instead, I would expect >> such systems to explicitly flag/annotate their CBDs with some >> authoritative information about the source providing the the answer. >> Even so, it is not clear to me how today solutions like Joseki/URIQA >> solves this problem though. >> >> Any thoughts about this? > > Jeremy Carroll, Chris Bizer, Pat Hayes, and I have been working on an > approach > to address such issues -- concerning named graphs, signatures, and > authentication. > We are working to get a paper completed. thanks! > > To properly address such concerns, you have to (in our opinion) add a > little bit > of extra machinery and augment the RDF MT -- so given the presumption > that what > the DAWG comes up with should sync with the latest RDF/OWL specs, that > could put > it out of scope. well - not sure - perhaps need to discuss this once we have got a clearer picture of the story here - I would rather need instead such a feature :-) provenance/attributions seem to be a key aspect to consider for the success of the whole RDF and associated query languages stuff - anybody else agree on this? Alberto
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 03:58:02 UTC