- From: Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:10:11 +0200
- To: Tobias Kuhn <kuhntobias@gmail.com>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Tobias! Thanks for your suggestion! I really like the concept - it solves the problem of self-references that kept me from using the document hash as part of the URI. Since thinking about this, I gave up on strict immutability of documents, but the idea may be worth revisiting, maybe using the memento framework for managing versions. I see your java implementation is using Sesame. Do you think it would be much work to port it to jena? Best Florian Am 03.07.2017 um 20:22 schrieb Tobias Kuhn: > Hi Florian, > > Though not complete solution to your problem, nanopublications > (http://nanopub.org/wordpress/) with Trusty URIs > (http://trustyuri.net/) could be the basis for the system you > describe. They allow you to create immutable RDF snippets with > metadata and to refer to these snippets in a verifiable manner. > > Regards, > Tobias > > > On 03.07.2017 16:17, Florian Kleedorfer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Consider a communication channel between two agents who exchange >> messages in the form of named RDF Graphs. The channel allows for >> adding new messages but not for removing any data. The history of the >> channel is unambiguous and always accessible to both agents. This >> construct can be seen as an RDF dataset that both agents have >> read/write but no replace or delete access to. Its use is that of a >> negotiation device that allows for setting up terms of a contract. >> >> The way the system is built, the messages consist of any number of >> 'content' RDF graphs (the message's payload), 'envlope' graphs with >> address information (sender, recipient etc), and graphs containing >> cryptographic signatures. >> >> What's needed is an approach that allows these agents to make >> assertions about earlier messages (their content graphs) in the >> conversation dataset so as to modify the meaning of the dataset. >> >> The simplest example I can think of is that one agent might realize >> they made a typing error in an earlier message and want to correct >> the information by sending a message stating that the earlier graph >> should be disregarded and another message containing the corrected >> information. >> >> Similar situations occur when negotiating aspects of the agreement, >> e.g. price. >> >> For both agents, at any point in the conversation, the meaning of the >> conversation dataset must always be unambiguous and equal, and it >> must be clear to both agents if they agree (both hold the same graphs >> true) or if there is a conflict. >> >> I am contemplating defining a vocabulary that allows for making such >> statements and defining dataset semantics that take these statements >> into account, unless I find a suitable existing approach. I found the >> SWP (Semantic Web Publishing) vocabulary, which is intended to do >> something similar, but does not seem to have a negative property for >> rejecting a graph, so I'm not convinced. Any Ideas, pointers, or >> followup discussions are greatly appreciated! >> >> Thanks, >> Florian >> >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2017 08:11:23 UTC