Re: RDF triple assertions live forever?

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