W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Spamming a URI

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:51:28 +0200
Message-ID: <007901c4a078$f7cb44f0$0f8d2da0@wrz03295>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Matt Halstead" <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>


Hi Matt,

simple question. Many possible answers.

My current take is to have the crawler capture povenance information using
Named Graphs and to use different trust policies which are translated into
TriQL.P queries afterwards to determine which information is trustworthy.
See:

Using Context- and Content-Based Trust Policies on the Semantic Web:
http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/SWTSGuide/p747-bizer.pdf
Named Graphs Homepage: http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/
TriQL.P: http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/TriQLP/index.htm

Many other possible answers are found in the

Semantic Web Trust and Security Resource Guide:
http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/SWTSGuide/index.htm

Chris



>
> I realize there is 'trust' in the semantic web cake[1], but I am
> intrigued to understand how this is envisaged to work at even a simple
> RDF level.  If we have something as simple and useful as a semantic web
> crawler, e.g. swoogle [2], then how do we ignore the work of spammers
> which inappropriately attribute properties and values to, or reference
> in any way, a particular resource URI?
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/0412-RDF-functions/slide4-0.html
> [2] http://pear.cs.umbc.edu/swoogle/index.php
>
> cheers
> Matt
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 07:51:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT