- From: Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 16:17:10 +0200
- To: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi, Consider a communication channel between two agents who exchange messages in the form of named RDF Graphs. The channel allows for adding new messages but not for removing any data. The history of the channel is unambiguous and always accessible to both agents. This construct can be seen as an RDF dataset that both agents have read/write but no replace or delete access to. Its use is that of a negotiation device that allows for setting up terms of a contract. The way the system is built, the messages consist of any number of 'content' RDF graphs (the message's payload), 'envlope' graphs with address information (sender, recipient etc), and graphs containing cryptographic signatures. What's needed is an approach that allows these agents to make assertions about earlier messages (their content graphs) in the conversation dataset so as to modify the meaning of the dataset. The simplest example I can think of is that one agent might realize they made a typing error in an earlier message and want to correct the information by sending a message stating that the earlier graph should be disregarded and another message containing the corrected information. Similar situations occur when negotiating aspects of the agreement, e.g. price. For both agents, at any point in the conversation, the meaning of the conversation dataset must always be unambiguous and equal, and it must be clear to both agents if they agree (both hold the same graphs true) or if there is a conflict. I am contemplating defining a vocabulary that allows for making such statements and defining dataset semantics that take these statements into account, unless I find a suitable existing approach. I found the SWP (Semantic Web Publishing) vocabulary, which is intended to do something similar, but does not seem to have a negative property for rejecting a graph, so I'm not convinced. Any Ideas, pointers, or followup discussions are greatly appreciated! Thanks, Florian --
Received on Monday, 3 July 2017 14:18:01 UTC