- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:32:32 +0100
- To: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <chris@bizer.de>
On Feb 27, 2004, at 03:13, ext Pat Hayes wrote: > We may, though, end up with an infinite recursion. I.e., we have > a graph X that is asserted. In order to say that X is asserted, > we have to have another graph X' containing a statement that > X is asserted. But if X' is also asserted, we have to have another > graph X'' with a statement saying that X' is asserted, etc., etc. > > Lewis Carroll was there first: > > http://www.lewiscarroll.org/achilles.html > > > ??? > > > > Nah, don't worry about it. Once you assert something, its asserted. > You don't need to assert the assertion. > Sorry, Pat. I don't follow you. If there is a graph X and a graph Y, and there is a triple in graph Y that says that graph X is asserted, yet we find no triple saying that graph Y is asserted, then is graph X actually asserted? If the triple asserting graph X is not asserted, then how can graph X be asserted? That said, I'm starting to appreciate some of Chris' arguments about all statements being asserted, no matter what. I still have some questions about how to "bootstrap" trust, such that it seems there must be some requirement for each graph to contain statements reflecting its source/authority (a signature perhaps?) otherwise, how do you anchor your trust in terms of a given graph? Patrick > Pat > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell > phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 06:32:38 UTC