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@[10.0.100.76]>
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:
>
>>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).

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 
more.

>
>>
>>- 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?

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.

Pat


>
>Cheers,
>
>Patrick
>
>--
>
>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 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