W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: why I don't like named graph IRIs in the DATASET proposal

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:18:38 +0100
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9879849B-C60B-4700-9547-2B800A8CFFBA@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
On 2 Oct 2011, at 00:29, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> As to doing inference over "untrusted data", (A) I think that *all* trust is predicated,

The definition I work with is something like this:

“trusted data” = “data assumed by someone to be of sufficient quality for some purpose”

> and (B), it really doesn't matter if Bob claims to be a <Genius> or he claims to be a <Super-genius> and inferencing leads me to discover that he believes himself a <Genius>, my trust of the inferential closure is pretty much identical to my trust of his homepage.

It matters if Bob claims that all vegetarians are geniuses.

You'll have to carefully filter Bob's graph in order to remove anything of that sort before you can pass it to your inference engine. That's my point: you have to make trust decisions *before* you can do OWL reasoning.

> I believe the only exception to this is when you don't entirely trust the ontology 'cause it's got some ragged edges (as happens with large OWL-ified medical ontologies like SNOMED-CT).

You're making an assumption of strong A-Box and T-Box split, where the T-Box is hand-selected and trusted. That's my point: you have to make trust decisions *before* you can do OWL reasoning.

Best,
Richard
Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 12:19:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT