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

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:44:03 +0200
Message-Id: <7216ED00-71C7-11D8-B899-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <chris@bizer.de>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


On Mar 08, 2004, at 15:01, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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)

My proposal: a specialized vocabulary/semantics for qualifying graphs
in an authoritative manner by the creator/owner of the graph (probably
has to include manditory graph signing or the like).

>
> - how can a third party say that they trust such a graph

By saying they trust the owner/source/authority of the graph.

>
> - how the end consumer determines which graphs to believe or not.

Based on the authoritative qualifications of the graph, and auxiliary
information/policies founded on that boostrapping layer.

>
> 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.

Is it really such a problem that the machinery allows one to state
paradoxes -- since one could have mechanisms to filter out or reject
graphs with such paradoxes?

(I'm well over my head here... but ask the question nonetheless ;-)

>
> What really matters is the end users viewpoint which is where I see 
> Chris's
> work as strongest.

I agree. I find that most of what Chris says about trust mechanisms
and policies feels intuitively right, but that the machinery by which
such mechanisms and policies are grounded is not quite right.

The blurring of the distinction between asserted and trusted is hard
for me to overlook.

Cheers,

Patrick

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 07:44:02 UTC

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