W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:26:19 +0100
Message-ID: <010801c40519$55e0be90$1f12fea9@named4gc1asnuj>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC