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

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:22:52 +0200
Message-Id: <4A3CD1A6-7335-11D8-83FC-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>

On Mar 10, 2004, at 15:09, ext Chris Bizer wrote:

>>>>> Maybe it is also helpful in this context to use the 
>>>>> statement/stating
>>>>> terminology:
>>>>> 1. RDF Statements don't involve speech acts. So statements are
>>>>> contained in
>>>>> graphs that describe themselves as :G1 x:GraphQualificationProperty
>>>>> x:unasserted or are described somewhere else somehow as unasserted.
>>>> Right.
>>>>> 2. RDF Stating: Through a speech act a statement becomes a stating.
>>>>> So
>>>>> a
>>>>> stating is the result of an agent claiming a Statement.
>>>> Not sure I follow this. Can you provide an example?
>>> Taking Pat's "asserting is a speech act", I tried to link the 
>>> existing
>>> terminology "Statement/Stating" used inconsistently today to your
>>> x:GraphQualificationProperty. I think the term RDF Stating is used
>>> mostly,
>>> when speaking about agents claiming stuff in an distributed, "social"
>>> environment. The term RDF Statement more in situations where RDF is
>>> just
>>> used as datamodel / knowledge model without taking agents and speech
>>> acts
>>> into account. Thinking more about it and seeing that we just discuss
>>> the
>>> agent scenario, the idea of somehow linking it with the
>>> x:GraphQualificationProperty doesn't appear that convincing any more
>>> ;-(
>> Hmmm....  couldn't one view the insertion of graph qualification
>> statements specifying assertion and authentication as being
>> equivalent to a "speech act", the graph being the utterance?
> Also hmmm ... and I think we should forward this question to Pat.
> 1. If "assertion = speech act", the assertion *has* to take place in a
> "context" for example a point in time.
> Thus it is tempting to conclude that a graph is asserted, if it (1)
> describes itself

I accept this.

> or (2) is described somewhere else with the properties
> dc:author and dc:date.

I don't accept this.

This latter case is similar to one person saying what someone else
said -- i.e. hearsay. All that the first person could assert is
that the "speech act" occured and what its content was, but
can't assert the content of that speech act.

Restraining the boostrapping machinery to each graph prevents
folks from speaking on behalf of others.

> 2. Publishing an unasserted graph on the Web wouldn't be a speech act.

It wouldn't necessarily be.

If no explicit statement is made within the graph that the graph
is asserted, then it is not (necessarily) a speech act.

I.e. it is the act of using particular machinery to explicitly
indicate that a graph is asserted that constitutes the speech

If it were explicitly stated in the graph that the graph was
*not* asserted, then it would simply be a document (quoted

Some agent may, for whatever reason, still wish to treat those
statements as asserted, but that is then contrary to the explicitly
expressed intended purpose of those statements by the publisher
of the graph (e.g. taking it out of context, etc.).

Similar to my saying: "The following is false: 'sugar always tastes
bitter'" and you treating that as if I has actually asserted
that "sugar always tastes bitter".


In essence, a graph explicitly marked as unasserted is a quoting

A graph with no explicit marking for assertion is simply an
ambiguous "utterance" which may or may not reflect the asserted
beliefs of the source.

A graph with explicit marking for assertion equates to an
utterance within a context of "I assert/swear/affirm/believe/...
that ...", which can serve as the basis for accountability
(and of course, trust).




Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 03:23:12 UTC

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