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

Re: Representing trust (and other context) in RDF

From: Guha <guha@guha.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:26:29 -0700
Message-ID: <392C02B5.97E8F9C6@guha.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
The way the AI folks have been modelling contexts ---

if source--arc-->target (written as arc(source, target))
is in context C, you write it as ist(C, arc(source, target)).
"ist" is read as "is True In".

C is itself a first class object (i.e., a resource). The collection
of statements that are true in C could be closed under

The common frameworks for contexts allow for lifting
of statements from one context to another. i.e., if a statement
P is true in C1, one can conclude that it is true in C2.


Graham Klyne wrote:

> I retract the bit about linking contexts to statements -- it's no
> improvement as far as I can tell...
> At 03:30 PM 5/24/00 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> >There is still the problem of finding all statements to which a given
> >context applies, but, if necessary, this might be overcome by having
> >back-links from the context:
> >
> >>T --rdf:type-->  SignedDocument
> >>T --principal--> Alice
> >>T --algorithm--> RSA
> >>T --statement--> digest:<hash1>
> >>...
> >>T --statement--> digest:<hashN>
> >>digest:<hash1> --context--> T
> >>...
> >>digest:<hashN> --context--> T
> >><statement 1>
> >>...
> >><statement N>
> (Unfortunately, the back-links don't point to the statements...)
> #g
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2000 12:27:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:30 UTC