Re: Named graphs etc

Hi Patrick,

>That said, I'm starting to appreciate some of Chris' arguments about
>all statements being asserted, no matter what.
>

The argument isn't that they are all asserted, but that they are uncertain
until the user applies a trust function to them. I think it is a three step
process:
1. Graphs published on the Semantic Web are not asserted but uncertain to
the user.
2. Before a user does something with the information, he applies a
subjective and task-specific trust function (or policy) to the information.
There is a wide range of different functions possible which take provenance,
the autor's reputation, related information published by other authors into
account.
3. After applying the trust function, the user treats the information as
asserted, keeping in mind that there is still the risk that it is wrong.

>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?
>

Not a strict requirement. I think a trust architecture shouldn't strictly
require anything but use all trust relevant information it can get.

There are different possibilities how provenance information could be
attached to graphs:
1. The author of the graph attaches provenance information and might also
sign the graph.
2. The crawler (or other information access architecture) that collects
published information adds the information where it found the data.

This information can afterwards be used in trust evaluations like "Use only
data that has been signed by authors I know" or "Use all information, no
matter if it is signed and not matter from which source or author it
originates".  The first policy is obviously stricter.

The attached WWW2004 poster describes these ideas in more detail.

Chris

Jeremy: You will get the paper outline this afternoon.