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

RE: Paradoxes are bugs on the SW was: Re: questions on assertion

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:16:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105BA287F@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Giles Hogben" <giles.hogben@jrc.it>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

> So what is the meaning of assertion in RDF? If triples are, as you
> unasserted, what is the meaning of

> "This document describes a model theory for RDF(S) which treats the
> language as simple assertional language, in which each triple makes a 
> distinct assertion and the meaning of any triple is not changed by
> other triples"

Hold on.  Just because someone makes an assertion does not mean that you
believe it.  How wonderful it would be if I could just drop one simple
RDF triple onto the Internet (joshuaa@microsoft.com isThe kingOfWorld)
and have that become true.

Any legitimate system is going to have to decide which triples to trust
and which to distrust (and in some cases, place on a continuum of
trustworthiness).  Using triples to assert trustworthiness (or veracity)
of other triples does not at all change the meaning of the original
triple.  It simply gives you additional information for choosing which
triples to believe.

A. Joe says "There are aliens in my house"
B. John says "Joe doesn't have a house"

The *meaning* of statement "A" is clear.  Statement "B" does not in any
way affect the meaning of statement "A".  In fact, it doesn't even
affect the truth of statement A.  The listener is left to make a
judgment call about which assertion he accepts and which he rejects.
Rejecting a triple is not the same as changing its meaning.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 13:17:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC