- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:34:23 +0200
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: ext Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-archive@w3.org, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
On Mar 10, 2004, at 13:16, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Mindful of time pressure ... > > I suggest the following approach for our paper ... > > 1) introduce a property > rdfx:assertedBy > > whose domain is graphs and range is agents union documents. Would you restrict the interpretation of such a property only to cases where the subject is the graph in which the statement occurs? I.e., would you allow one graph to be qualified by an rdfx:assertedBy statement in another graph? Also, how do you determine trust of second graph? Perhaps some clever agent knows that another agent trusts a particular authority and therefore introduces a graph that asserts that some other (questionable) graph is asserted by that trusted authority. ??? I think that ultimately, the graph qualification has to be constrained to the particular graph, and in addition there has to be some form of graph signing with checksumming to know that the graph is uncorrupted. Otherwise, you end up with a framework where one is chasing potentially endless chains of assertions and/or which is easy to spoof. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 07:34:34 UTC