RE: Named graphs etc

Patrick:
> 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?
>

It seems that there are three issues:

- how can an author indicate that a graph is intended to be true (or is
intended merely as an example)

- how can a third party say that they trust such a graph

- how the end consumer determines which graphs to believe or not.

These seem less than orthogonal.

e.g.

_:g ( _:g rdf:type log:Unasserted .
      ...
      ... )

seems like the author can make a strong statement of fictionality, but this
borders on the paradoxical, when the ... is empty.

What really matters is the end users viewpoint which is where I see Chris's
work as strongest.

Jeremy