- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:57:09 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> Thanks Sandro, yes I think that does make sense, but unfortunately it's > not a self-descriptive solution. That is, I can't - in Dan's terms[1] - > "follow my nose" from an HTTP/RDF message to an understanding of whether > or not the graph inside that message is asserted. > ... > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0162.html [ second reply, because my first didn't address "follow my nose" ] For the apporach I'm suggesting, where assertedness is subsumed by trustedness, esw:FollowYourNose [2] requires a trust-bearing predicate, which might be called "rlink:requires" but has the same truth conditions as owl:imports (cf DanC parallel message). You follow you nose to http://example.com/sandro/myDog and it says <http://example.com/sandro> rlink:requires <http://example.com/sandro/myDog>. so I follow my nose to http://example.com/sandro which ALSO says <http://example.com/sandro> rlink:requires <http://example.com/sandro/myDog>. and now my trust/assertion logic has boiled down the question of whether to trust http://example.com/sandro/myDog to be the same as whether to trust http://example.com/sandro. This might boil the question of trust for everything starting http://www.w3.org/ down to a question of trusting http://www.w3.org, or it might not, depending what RDF is provided. My plan is to let humans make the jump from "http://www.ibm.com said X" to "IBM said X", and leave machines out of it. I expect machines to someday get more involved in that jump by verifying cryptographic signatures, but I think there are are some societal changes that have to happen first, and I don't want to hold my breath. -- sandro [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/FollowYourNose
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:56:41 UTC