Re: meta-information about assertions

You might also take a look at the Proof Markup Language (PML) work 
that's been done in conjunction with InferenceWeb research - see 
http://www.inference-web.org/ and 
http://tw.rpi.edu/2007/11/iw-poster-letter.pdf.

The project is particularly focused on provenance and trust, and 
provides ontologies for this that are OWL DL compliant.

Elisa

cdr wrote:

>On Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:13:16AM -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>  
>
>>Have you looked at http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ and the work 
>>on named graphs (and provenance in general)?
>>    
>>
>
>of course (speaking for the original poster too)! he is asking, the 'proper' way.
>
>theres many suggestions. like singleton named graphs (one per statement, or one per asserter), in-graph reification, and what not
>
>
>i have questions how this relates to HTTP and URIs , particularly. it doesnt all quite fit together clearly, imo.
>
>---
>lets take the first solution, singleton named graphs..
>
>the examples end up using the graph URI in the subject or object position of a statement... ok. but what if you GET that graph URI? normal servers just return a CBD or all the doc resources sharing a common trailing #hash. not an entire graph... 
>
>you have a sort of confliction between 'resource' and 'graph' which is 'multiple resources' and how do you differentiate when fetching?
>
>afaik there isnt even a 'Graph' header modifier when GETing an RDF resource.. how do you even specify?
>
>
>on the second solution, 'reification'. 
>you see stuff like <a> <statement:says> [<x> <y> <z>]
>
>how do you serialize this? you need a URI for the inner statement object, afaik. wheres the spec on this?
>
>
>
>
>  
>