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

Re: RDF based messaging, negotiating, and dataset semantics

From: Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:10:11 +0200
To: Tobias Kuhn <kuhntobias@gmail.com>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b2bcb0f3-c9c5-81a7-7b53-8ab4c0807ffd@austria.fm>
Hi Tobias!

Thanks for your suggestion! I really like the concept - it solves the 
problem of self-references that kept me from using the document hash as 
part of the URI.

Since thinking about this, I gave up on strict immutability of 
documents, but the idea may be worth revisiting, maybe using the memento 
framework for managing versions.

I see your java implementation is using Sesame. Do you think it would be 
much work to port it to jena?



Am 03.07.2017 um 20:22 schrieb Tobias Kuhn:
> 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.
> Regards,
> Tobias
> 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 Tuesday, 4 July 2017 08:11:23 UTC

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