- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:47:54 +0300
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Apr 06, 2004, at 18:21, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > After chatting with Chris ... Serves me right for reading my email sequentially ;-) > > Take 1: >> Abstract: >> The Semantic Web consists of many RDF graphs named >> by URIs. This paper discusses the syntax and semantics >> of such collections of named graphs. 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. > Take 2: > > > The Semantic Web consists of many RDF graphs named > by URIs. Same comment as before about fact versus perception. > This paper extends the syntax and > semantics of RDF to cover such collections > of named graphs. Much better. Yes. > This enables RDF statements > that describe graphs, which can be used > in many Semantic Web applications. > We explore in detail the important > application of Semantic Web > publishing: named graphs allow 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. > Graphs are trusted depending on: their content; > information about the graph; and the task the user > is performing. OK. I still propose the last sentence re web of trust. > > > (Chris noted that we needed to be clear that the paper is trying to > rebuild the RDF stack, and should be more explicit about the wide > applicability). > Agreed. Patrick > Jeremy > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 01:49:46 UTC