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

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:12:38 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f2cbc73aa97b636@[]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <chris@bizer.de>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

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

You can't bootstrap assertion/trust/etc. by putting stuff in graphs. 
These are all ABOUT graphs, so for example if you don't trust graphs, 
then having them say 'trust me!!' isn't going to make you trust them 

>>- 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.
>>_: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?

Well, paradoxes are kind of nasty to try to filter out and they play 
havoc with any attempt to formalize. But this isnt paradoxical, so I 
don't think we need to worry.

>(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.

I agree, this is important to get right. Not the same ideas.


>Patrick Stickler
>Nokia, Finland

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 Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:12:40 UTC

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