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: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 16:47:31 +0200
To: semantic-web@w3.org,W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03F430F6-2DBB-45F6-8401-171212F64D34@austria.fm>
Again, I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. We submitted a paper explaining this idea to the DeSemWeb Workshop at ISWC 2017 (pending review). If you're interested, here is the link to the open review version: 



Am 3. Juli 2017 16:17:10 MESZ schrieb Florian Kleedorfer <florian.kleedorfer@austria.fm>:
>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
>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
>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
>Similar situations occur when negotiating aspects of the agreement,
>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!
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2017 14:47:58 UTC

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