Re: Named graphs etc

On Feb 27, 2004, at 03:13, ext Pat Hayes wrote:

>  We may, though, end up with an infinite recursion. I.e., we have
>  a graph X that is asserted. In order to say that X is asserted,
>  we have to have another graph X' containing a statement that
>  X is asserted. But if X' is also asserted, we have to have another
>  graph X'' with a statement saying that X' is asserted, etc., etc.
>
> Lewis Carroll was there first:
>
> http://www.lewiscarroll.org/achilles.html
>
>
>  ???
>
>
>
> Nah, don't worry about it. Once you assert something, its asserted. 
> You don't need to assert the assertion.
>

Sorry, Pat. I don't follow you.

If there is a graph X and a graph Y, and there is a triple in graph Y
that says that graph X is asserted, yet we find no triple saying that
graph Y is asserted, then is graph X actually asserted? If the triple
asserting graph X is not asserted, then how can graph X be asserted?

That said, I'm starting to appreciate some of Chris' arguments about
all statements being asserted, no matter what.

I still have some questions about how to "bootstrap" trust, such that
it seems there must be some requirement for each graph to contain
statements reflecting its source/authority (a signature perhaps?)
otherwise, how do you anchor your trust in terms of a given graph?

Patrick



> Pat
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IHMC       (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>  40 South Alcaniz St.       (850)202 4416   office
>  Pensacola                 (850)202 4440   fax
>  FL 32501                     (850)291 0667    cell
>  phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>

--

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

Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 06:32:38 UTC