- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:08:42 +0200
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Mar 09, 2004, at 14:04, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> A information provider
>> a) publishes information which he beliefs to be true, meaning he sees
>> the
>> information as asserted
>
> :someGraph { ... x:thisGraph x:isAsserted x:true . }
>
> or simply
>
> :someGraph { ... }
>
> and presume that unless otherwise stated, it's asserted.
>
> ...
>>
>> The question raised by Patrick if a information consumer can be held
>> responsible for what he publishes is on a different level, which I
>> think
>> strictly requires digital signatures and PKIs.
>
> Absolutely, but digital signatures and PKIs are merely forms of
> graph qualification. Having a bootstraping vocabulary/semantics
> to hook such machinery onto then allows for folks to have a clear
> and explicit basis for determining that someone (a) explicitly
> asserted some statement and (b) who that someone is -- which are
> the key elements for accountability.
Note, though, that when it comes to social meaning, accountability,
etc. that even though SW agents may, by default, for legacy reasons
presume that unless told otherwise a graph is asserted, best
practices and legislation may both mandiate the presence of an
explicit statement of assertion for a graph, particularly if
contracts, agreements, or other legal contexts apply to the statements.
(more fun, and er, money for the lawyers...)
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 07:09:04 UTC