Re: RDF based messaging, negotiating, and dataset semantics

On 3 July 2017 at 16:17, Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>
wrote:

> 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!
>

I had a go at this a while back.

http://webid.im/paper/

Unfortunately I had to put the project on hold for a bit due to time
constraints (particularly as angular 1.0 experienced breaking changes), and
a shortage of servers to test on.

But it was a largely working implementation, except for the cryptographic
signatures.  Instead of graphs n3/trig style I took a simpler approach, to
start with, of putting one message (SIOC vocab) per file.


>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>