Re: Provenance as a first-class citizen

Sandro et. al. -
    Perhaps I'm missing something here (I admit to not having time to
have read the latest developments in RDF in HTML, so perhaps a quick
refrerher is in need for the general audience), but how exactly do you
"point to the original"? Are you saying that every RDF statement I post
on the Web has a URI, that of the site it's posted to?

So I post

   myns:tom myns:likes myns:mary to www.example.org.

Are you saying "point to www.example.org?" to reference that URI?

What if I post two statements to www.example.org:

myns:tom myns:likes myns:mary.
myns:john myns:likes myns:mary.

And I only want to point to the second tuple? Surely pointing
example.org then gets us two statements, when we only want to point to
the second? Perhaps we could use fragids to give them each URIs?  Yet
that seems too messy...

Are you saying that the URI you got a statement from has the implicit
provenance of that URI (which does make sense)?  Isn't this just equal
to named graphs,where the name URI defaults to whatever URI you got the
statement from? I think that sounds rather sensible.

So myns:john myns:likes myns:mary is equal to :example {myns:john
myns:likes myns:mary.} by default.

Regardless, I think what Sandro is saying makes sense, and basically
specifies the default behavior of quads. So, the question is whether or
not people will pass quads around the Web (like RSS ala Ben) or just
post RDF to URIs (via Cuire, GRDDL, etc. ala Sandro). Well, that's an
empirical question, but obviously both are important and not
contradictory use cases. We'll only know the empirical truth once the
SemWeb is massively deployed. Yet on the surface these approaches seem
complementary to me unless I'm missing something!
                                                                       
                                             -harry

ben syverson wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> If
>> you just point to the original, without copying the content, you don't
>> need more than triples, and you don't need reification.
>
>
> Even if you're simply referencing the original, my issue is that the 
> assertions contained within are implicitly trusted, and not attributed.
>
> - ben syverson
> likn
>
>

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 22:46:16 UTC