- From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:26:19 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "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>
My answers to Jeremy's questions: > > 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) > He should use appropriate vocabulary. If he wants to express a quotation, he should use Pat's literal workaround. > - how can a third party say that they trust such a graph > If the graph is identified using a URI, the third party can claim that it believes the graph or not. If the graph is identified with a bnode, the third party has some problems. > - how the end consumer determines which graphs to believe or not. > Using subjective trust policies which take the above into account. > 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 10:24:55 UTC