W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Possible Idea For a Sem Web Based Game?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:16:09 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCNN7+JGyovR8QzYwWnm7tiJCd6J_eUwewpdzM@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 21 November 2010 20:10, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:43:18 +0000
> Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>> One possible addition, that would go way beyond what the CYOA books
>> could offer would be for the client to have a stateful store. So when
>> you entered a room, there could be a list of room contents which you
>> could collect into your store. The objects that you've collected could
>> then influence the progress of the game. Probably need to think a bit
>> more about how this should work.
> After further thought, this could/should probably be implemented as a
> second layer, above the linked data game.
> A stateful endpoint would exist which would be a quad store. When
> you began a game, a graph would be created in that store representing
> your game - this could be multi-player. The graph would be
> prepopulated with triples along the lines of:
>        <#object13> game:location <#node12> .
> At each node, you'd query this endpoint to find what objects exist
> (and thus can be collected) at that node. When collecting an object
> you'd send an update to the endpoint to remove the triple:
>        <#object13> game:location <#node12> .
> And add:
>        <#object13> game:carrier <#player3> .
> When dropping an object you'd do the inverse.
> The question though is: how far would we want to go to prevent
> cheating? For a single-player game, there's probably no reason to worry
> about cheating ("you're only cheating yourself").
> For multi-player, while (in my current model) the client software can
> pretty easily prevent cheating, the server software cannot. Do we add
> lots of crypto, or do we rely on trust?

I think trust will work well to start, but crypto eventually would be
neat.  It's possible to actually implement parts of the whole sem web
layer cake.

It's possible to couple this with a Web of Trust, linked to your
WebID, or a zero knowledge proof of your WebID.

Another thing I've seen is a whole mud run by an trusted Agent Server
side that acts as a 'Dungeon master'.  Users perform an action, which
is relayed to the dungeon master.  The dungeon master is trusted to
handle the updates etc (e.g. via ACL).

> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Sunday, 21 November 2010 19:16:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC