- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 13 Nov 2002 12:15:00 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:39, Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> > This answer is so important to me because I could not live with OWL if the
> > above scenario were not possible. Note: there is nothing fuzzy here
> > concerning
> > trust, commitment, asserting-or-not, etc.
>
> On the contrary; in your own words, "I like the extension
> made at someURI2". That's a clear expression of trust, no?
>
> The only question is how to express that opinion to the machine.
>
> At my disposal, I have a variety of options.
I just remembered another option; one that make the trust
issues even more clear:
I maintain an index of URI schemes
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html
it's not authoritative; it includes lots of stuff
from the authoritative registry, but also other stuff.
In March 2001, I started using Semantic Web techonolgies
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html#ctech
to maintain it.
In particular, I have specific rules that import
specific statements from the IANA registry:
[[[
# The registry is trusted about certain properties...
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>
:trustedAbout dc:description, ws:schemeName, ws:specifies,
ws:reserves, inet:rfc.
[...]
# If a document is trusted about some property, all
# statements whose predicate is that property are lifed
# into this context.
{ :doc :trustedAbout :p.
:doc :says [
log:includes { :s :p :o }
].
} log:implies { :s :p :o }.
]]]
-- http://www.w3.org/Addressing/scheme-registry-rules.n3
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 13:15:32 UTC