W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > July 2002

Re: questions on assertion

From: finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:11:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3D2054FF.19F87F58@cs.umbc.edu>
To: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org

Giles Hogben wrote:
>... So the problem I am getting at, is how can say, without creating a logical
> inconsistency, that one believes a statement in rdf data is false?

RDF doesn't provide a general way of making negative statements.  Neither
does DAML+OIL or OWL, though those languages provide some indirect ways of
making negative assertions (e.g., saying that two classes are disjoint)

> This is in my view a real problem for applications involved in reputation
> and trust.

I agree with you here, though one can do a lot of what's needed with the ability
to be unable to prove that a fact is true given an ontology and a set of instances.

> 2. If rdf statements implicitly carry assertion, how can I specify the
> author of the assertion? That is - does the assertion implied by 1. also
> imply something about who is making the assertion (is it the author of the
> document?) - then how do I change that if I want to in a statement like 7.

I think this is also a weakness that will eventually need to be addressed.  Some
seem to be happy with the idea of associating rdf triples with the URIs where
they are found.  But, I think we will need to tie the assertions to an "agent"
whether that is an individual, a software agent, or an organization.  I imagine an
ontology that can be used to identify something as an agent and define appropriate
properties.  One could then add statements to a file that identify the agent to which
the assertions in the file can be attributed.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 09:12:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT