W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2008

Re: RDF triple assertions live forever?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:40:32 -0400
Message-Id: <4C821E65-60E6-40A7-A113-CAE6EF71D8B6@gmail.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
To: "Olivier Rossel" <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>

A hack it is, because the reifications have no semantic implications  
for the original triple according to the RDF semantics.
-Alan

On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:36 AM, Olivier Rossel wrote:

>
> 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 11:42:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:05 UTC