- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:34:26 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
* Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2006-03-28 19:19+0200] > > Hi all, > > Just checking: Is it correct that publishing an RDF file on the Web > does not assert the statements therein? > > Is it correct that out-of-band information (e.g. a web page stating > "All these files are up-to-date", or some nonstandard extension of > RDF) is necessary before an agent can safely act upon any RDF statement? You're confusing at least 2 things, I think. If I publish an RDF document that says, more or less, 'Saddam has weapons of mass destrction [in Jan 2003]', we can talk about what info you need before you can be sure some human (me) is (or was...) making the claim. For example, it might be PGP signed, claim itself to have me as its dc:creator / foaf:maker, be dated today, and the PGP stuff checks out ok, and the PGP keyservers don't report that my key has been retracted / compromised. All that is a world apart from whether an RDF can "safely act" on any RDF statement. Firstly, you can act on reported claims, regardless who made 'em. You can stash them in databases and directories, index them, follow links from them. Classic Web stuff. Secondly, just cos we know who asserted them, we don't necessarily believe them to be true. And of course, even if we believe their claims to be true, that has little to do with safety of acting on them. It's an unsafe world.... > (Hypothetical example: a FOAF agent that fills my address book with > contact data for the people I foaf:know.) Good example. You might have come across some geneological data for folk who are long-since uncontactable. I think 'safety' in your sense is likely to be scenario- and application- specific. cheers, Dan > > Cheers, > Richard
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 21:34:36 UTC