- From: Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:36:25 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
you can hack conditional statements in RDF with reification. cf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Mar/0085.html On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org> wrote: > > Being the one who kicked this off by making the original assertion > (which I actually got from someone else but almost certainly > mis-interpreted along the way) I feel I should give a little further input. > > Actually, it's _good news_ (as well as common sense) that triples don't > get stored in perpetuity. I came to this from the standpoint of wanting > to make the statement (in a semantic way) that > > foaf:Agent "will stand by the following assertions until" $date > > Which is a little different from a cache header... > > Phil. > > > > Renato Golin wrote: > > > > Phillip Rhodes wrote: > >> In a discussion that has arisen recently on the foaf-dev list, somebody > >> pointed out that they've been told that RDF triples live forever. > >> That is, once something is asserted it is considered asserted until, > >> as it > >> was put, "the entropic heat death of the universe." > > > > Hi Phillip, > > > > This assertion is, to me, the same as to say all web pages are static, > > meaning that you can cache them locally without any further attempt to > > get it back from the server again. > > > > All web browsers have a fair cache policy which we're all used to > > (Shift-F5 and stuff) so no big deal to do the same with triples and RDF > > browsers. > > > > Also, with RDF is easier to say that site A has "the same triple as" > > another site B but with different content, who will you trust? Let's say > > you have a timestamp annotating the triples, would you still believe the > > "newest" one? > > > > Site A: > > renato is bad (today) > > > > Site B: > > renato is good (10 years ago) > > > > It's the same with RDFAuth, you have to trust someone sometime, you need > > a list of trusted sites, people, documents, beliefs. If your site says > > "renato is bad" it may "like" better Site A and even automatically add > > it to the "trusted sites" or even keep a score of things you agree with > > the site as the "automatic trust level" as opposed to your "hardcoded > > trust level" when you trust someone even if you don't agree with him/her. > > > > The possibilities are endless... > > > > cheers, > > --renato > > > > > > > > -- > Phil Archer > Chief Technical Officer, > Family Online Safety Institute > w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/ > > > > >
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 10:37:10 UTC