- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:37:07 +0200
- To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Mar 09, 2004, at 13:18, ext Chris Bizer wrote: > >> Is it information, or better considered meta-information? Can the >> provenance info be accessed separately from the graph itself? > > Yes. Here's where I think we need to make an important distinction between "authoritative" qualification of a graph and third-party qualification of a graph. It may be the case that an agent trusts certain third parties, and even may choose to trust statements made about a graph by a third party over statements made about the graph in the graph itself (e.g. the owner of the graph specifies a higher accuracy percentage than the more-trusted third party, or the owner of the graph doesn't explicitly state that the graph is asserted but the third party does, etc.). Note that the ability to consider third party statements about a graph still doesn't preclude the need for a bootstrapping mechanism, since, after all, one has to determine the trust associated with the graph containing those third party statements as well... > > I see the trust layer more as an application domain for named graphs. > So for defining named graphs we don't have to go too far. > We at least seem to agree on this particular point. Cheers, Patrick (sorry, Pat, for being in a closer timezone to Chris and pre-empting your right to first reply...) -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 07:37:15 UTC