- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:40:32 -0400
- To: "Olivier Rossel" <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
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