W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Semantic Web Hackings

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:40:29 -0000
Message-ID: <007901c071d8$c0639440$2e50893e@dehora>
To: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>


: I'm not sure how you'd tie that into the single person <=> single URI
: dichotomy that I've been talking about though.

The dichotomy is solved by mapping a legal entity's DNA onto a URI. Cloning
suggests the need for version control.


: > There is stuff in DC that could probably be sensibly applied
:
: "dc:description" springs to mind:-
:
:      <rdf:Description rdf:about="mailto:sean@mysterylights.com"
:         foaf:mboxOf="Sean B. Palmer"
:         dc:description="This is the Web mailbox object of a single person
:           who's name is x"./>
:
: > I am not sure that there is an intrinsic need to disambiguate
: > people perfectly

Pretty Good Identity?


: Well, in some cases there is: I don't want anyone else using my credit
: card;

It's not our card, we're just one person who has been issued with it by a
third party (the card owner). How we speak about such is important:
conflating things and references to things may cause philosofiscal distress.
For example if we cancel our card, do we want to cancel the account? If we
have a credit card we are already known to be us by that third party. Which
we we are, or were, at transaction time is another matter. And the card
itself isn't important (it's just a token, easily broken). Access to the
account the card references is what matters. Proving that the entity
operating over the account via a card reference at any given transaction is
indeed one of the us's intended by the real card owning third party is very
difficult and how much work you or we want to expend on verifiying the
operator will depend on an what risk levels are considred acceptable.
Identity is not a sure thing.


: > I am pretty sure that danbri's stuff uses mailto: and web pages as
: > "tags" for a person. If you add a date to a statement then you can
: > say "{mailto:charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au in december 1997}
: > refers to {mailto:charles@w3.org in December 2000}" and then
: > that either of those is the same as ...
:
: Yes: this is the Ontology and Logical layer that I was talking about.

An ontology and logical layer is just gravy. What's needed is a social and
legal framework that can be adequately melded with a computer system.


: 1) mailto:sean@mysterylights.com represents Sean B. Palmer
: 2) This is a definitve address as of todays date
: 3) This URI (that represents me) has these properties
: 4) You may make logical assumptions about these properties if that is
: allowed by their Schema.
:
: Problems: Do I have to backlink if I no longer control that server/email
: box?

Well no, you have to refresh. You have to update the processors and data
that assume you still control that box. This is a classic data integrity
issue, not solvable by RDF. Mind you, updating a global information network
is a tough one.


: All of these current properties are reified...is there no way to make
: some more sense of all of these using other RDF principles? What is the
: most secure way to assert that a URI is under the control of person x?

A verfication by a notary, or other distinguished legal entity.


: What
: practical uses are there *today* of making SW assertions about a
: mailbox/person?

Since we can say anything about anything, how about identity theft. No such
thing as bad publicity :)

--
I'm saying Bill de hÓra said this
Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 15:51:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT