- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:01:59 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <chris@bizer.de>
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
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 08:02:34 UTC