W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: TimBL: RDF assertions should be accountable

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:25:45 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Last question first:  I don't think this is a RDF core issue, so not 
belonging on the issues list.

(Rationale:  (a) RDF core has very minimal vocabulary -- without a 
recognized vocabulary there's no meaning to be held accountable for;  (b) 
some random XML might be valid RDF -- one can't be expected to be 
accountable for such mistakes;  therefore I think that the intent to assert 
an RDF statement must somehow be indicated by the context in which it 
occurs;  (c) the whole issue of being held accountable, in social contexts, 
depends on the circumstances in which something is said -- I think trying 
to fully codify these circumstances may turn out to be a rathole.)

However, I do agree that there will be (many) circumstances where one 
wishes to make a statement for which one is prepared to be held 
accountable, according to well-understood vocabularies.  Having some way to 
clearly recognize such statements would be good.  It's not a complete 
solution, but I think Joseph Reagle's suggestions [1] regarding digital 
signature info may be a useful mechanism here.  My comments on this 
proposal can be found at [2].


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-p3p-profile/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0048.html

(PS:  I don't recall making the comment about myths.)

At 09:19 PM 3/12/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>I remember Tim speaking about this at the RDF IG F2F (but I can't find it in
>my notes) -- as I recall it was something like this:
>     TimBL: We need to be sure that RDF has a clause in it that you can be
>     held responsible for the triples you assert. We didn't do this in HTTP,
>     and we should have.
>     GK?: That's no good -- what if I wanted to have a page of myths.
>     Aaron, others: Well then reify them.
>Of course Tim was much more eloquent. Anyway, I wanted to get this saved.
>Does it belong on the issues list?
>Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| ...schoolyard subversion...
>   <http://www.aaronsw.com>   |  because school harms kids
>AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237|  http://aaronsw.com/school/

Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 03:42:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:13 UTC