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

Re: RDF based messaging, negotiating, and dataset semantics

From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 09:19:26 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOLUXBtPuE-AoxvMQA54q1uHQDcCAVEh7gbLqdPU1jq+q-g0YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>
Cc: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
It reminds me the concept of 'state' of an object in Message Driven
Architecture where that state of such objects can be reconstructed from the
history of messages the object has received.

It also resembles the notion of 'dialog' in a (for example) P2P protocol
where each part 'responses' ask for missing information in previous
requests to complete a (task, information, data layers) dialog graph, maybe
'ala' RESTful HATEOAS. The layering is important as it corresponds to
data/state, contexts/schema, interaction/behavior levels of (aggregated)

My implementation of the later is being described in:

On Jul 3, 2017 11:26 AM, "Florian Kleedorfer" <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>

> 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 12:20:56 UTC

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