What about a trusted source that logs RDF trust levels of RDF found at different servers/ authors etc. Lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Allen > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 6:39 AM > To: Matt Halstead; www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: RE: Spamming a URI > > > > The semantic web is really no different than the regular WWW > in this respect. We regard it as a virtue that *anyone* can > publish a web page, even if the web page contains lies. We > also regard it as a virtue that anyone on the web can link to > any other page, even if the owner of the target page does not > know or support the person doing the linking. > > You assess trust by considering the source, checking for > digital signatures, etc. One way to add assurances to RDF: http://xmlns.com/wot/0.1/ > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt Halstead > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 7:28 PM > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: Spamming a URI > > > 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 15:01:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT