Re: Abstract etc.

On Apr 06, 2004, at 18:01, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
> We're running out of time -
>
> in particular - we need to agree author list,

> title , keywords and abstract mnext Tuesday - which since I am leaving 
> early on Thursday, and Friday is a UK holiday means Thursday a.m. 
> (i.e. Wednesday for Pat)
>
> Also stuff on TriX paper for Extreme below.
>
> So for the paper I suggest:
>
> Authors:
>
> Jeremy J. Carroll, Christian Bizer, Patrick Hayes, Patrick Stickler
>
> Title:
> Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust
>
> Areas from CFP:
> http://iswc2004.semanticweb.org/CF/researchTrack.php
> Languages, Tools and Methodologies for Semantic Web Data
> Semantic Web Trust, Privacy, Security and Intellectual Property Rights
>
> (any others??)
>
> Keywords:
>
> RDF, Syndication, Provenance,
> Trust, Security, Digital Signatures,
> Publishing, TriX, Model Theory, Graphs
> (that's probably too many - suggested changes?)
>
> Abstract:
>
> The Semantic Web consists of many RDF graphs named
> by URIs.

Is this a widely accepted fact? Perhaps "The Semantic Web
can be viewed as consisting of many RDF graphs named by
URIs."

???

> This paper discusses the syntax and semantics
> of such collections of named graphs.

Remove "collections of"? (organization/storage/management
of actual graphs is out of scope and "collection" implies
infrastructure.

> This enables
> improved clarity in  Semantic Web
> publishing, allowing publishers to communicate
> assertional intent, and to sign their graphs.
> Information consumers can evaluate specific graphs
> using task-specific trust policies, and act on the
> information from those named graphs that they accept.
>

OK.

>
> (something upbeat for the last line?)

How about "This provides a foundation for consumers to
establish a personal `web of trust' using a formally
defined and consistently deployed framework."

???

>
>
> On TriX paper (Carroll/Stickler) - I don't think I am going to have 
> time to update it after Pat's feedback on the named graph paper - 
> hence I think we need to update in terms of the current draft plus 
> planned changes and worry about any late changes after we have 
> submitted it. (i.e. the version that gets reviewed may not be exactly 
> the version that we wish to be reviewed, but close enough).

I'm OK with that.

I think in any case that we've already gotten the critical points in 
sync.

Patrick


>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 01:49:43 UTC