W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2017

Re: RDF based messaging, negotiating, and dataset semantics

From: Tobias Kuhn <kuhntobias@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:22:20 +0200
To: Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <43685df8-6c85-8b51-6f1d-ad6e96015ede@gmail.com>
Hi Florian,

Though not complete solution to your problem, nanopublications 
(http://nanopub.org/wordpress/) with Trusty URIs (http://trustyuri.net/) 
could be the basis for the system you describe. They allow you to create 
immutable RDF snippets with metadata and to refer to these snippets in a 
verifiable manner.


On 03.07.2017 16:17, Florian Kleedorfer 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!
> Thanks,
> Florian
Received on Monday, 3 July 2017 18:22:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:56 UTC