- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:47:23 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <chris@bizer.de>
>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? Maybe we are at cross purposes. I'm assuming that publishing a graph amounts to asserting it. If not, then you are right: there is no way to get something asserted by just publishing more statements about it, if publication does not qualify as assertion. You have to have a plain assertion somewhere to get the process started. On the other side of the coin, if publication (or maybe, publication in some mode or form) amounts to assertion, then there's no need to add another graph asserting the assertion. That's what I meant in my response above. Either way, there's no utilility in having a graph X saying that another graph Y is asserted. Unless X is asserted then it has no effect on Y ( as you note); and if you can assert X in some way, the you can do that to Y directly, so X is unnecessary (as I note). >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? There are folk who worry about this in other settings. I gather there are recognized techniques, eg having a 'super' source which is trusted by everyone and acts as a kind of World Bank for certifying trusted signatures. Things like notary publics are useful as well. But there dos have to be some kind of infrastructure for anchoring the trust in, you can't just make it happen by asserting things. Pat > >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 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 23:47:26 UTC