Re: Named graphs etc

On Mar 16, 2004, at 15:39, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>> I think I'm probably pushing for more of a tangible solution that
>> the rest of you, due I'm sure to my practical "build it so it will 
>> work"
>> mentality.
>>
>
> I think we are all on-board that goal ... but we also should be doing 
> the
> best theoretical job we can within the constraints of actually being 
> useful!
>

True.

>
>
>>> I see that as a publisher's choice.
>>
>> Well, it's a publisher's choice what machinery they choose to use
>> to indicate assertion/authenticity -- but ideally there would be
>> a well defined model/methodology to do so which most publishers
>> and agents would both use -- and that requires a reasonable
>> definition of how those "bootstrapping" interpretations are done.
>>
>> As shown in numerous examples, a bunch of statements and the RDF
>> and OWL MTs don't get you there. You end up either with the
>> chicken/egg question (how can a graph that is not asserted contain
>> a statement that asserts it) or the authenticity question (how do
>> we know that the authority of a graph as identified in a graph
>> actually is the origin of the graph).
>>
>> I think what we need to do is to (eventually) provide a model
>> that publishers will want to use because it provides useful
>> answers to the above two questions.
>>
>> Patrick
>
> Agreed - the most obvious is that the assertion chain should bottom 
> out with
> a graph that:
> - asserts itself
> - and includes its own signature
> - with a minimum of inference (e.g. none)
> - possible contains noting else except assertions and signatures of 
> other
> graphs
>
> A potential information-consumer can verify that signature, and 
> particularly
> if the graph does not contain other stuff, will be happy to accept the 
> graph
> as true - and the heart of the boot-strap is completed.
>

Agreed.

Patrick


> Jeremy
>
>
>
>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 08:53:53 UTC