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

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:56:08 +0200
Message-Id: <03675E3A-742D-11D8-98B5-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On Mar 12, 2004, at 15:10, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> G1 (ex:Water ex:colour ex:blue)
> G2 (G1 trix:assertedBy ex:Chris.)
> G3 (G1 trix:assertedBy ex:Patrick.
>     G2 trix:assertedBy ex:Pat.
>     G3 trix:assertedBy ex:Chris.)
> Now, given the ability to differentiate between authoritative
> assertions and third party assertions, we have a set of three
> graphs where we can terminate our trust determinations in
> some authority/agent, and can then reason backwards whether
> each of the graphs is to be trusted or relevant.
> ...
> Thus, our decisions about trust are fully grounded. In the case
> of G3, trust is grounded in terms of the authoritative assertions,
> but in the case of G1 and G2 in terms of third party assertions.

Note also, especially Pat, that if the knowledge store
has support for keeping track of graph membership, the 'bootstrapping
interpretation' to determine assertion/authenticity/authority of
each individual graph can still be applied even when the system
in question employs RDF/OWL reasoning, because any statements
which are inferred about any particular graph would belong to
some other graph (perhaps a system or system run-time graph, etc.)
and not to the original graph being considered, and one would
be determining assertion/authenticity/authority in terms of the
statements in the original graph alone, not inferred otherwise.

So one can just slurp in whatever graphs are out there, keeping
track of graph membership (at the cost of perhaps some redundancy
of triples) and can then apply trust policies in terms of both
authoritative qualifications (tests limited to statements about
a graph in that graph) as well as third party qualifications
(tests on statements about any graph in any graph).

But without that 'bootstrapping interpretation' limited to a
particular graph, you'll never properly terminate your
"chains of trust" and thus the model is useless.

OK. I'll shut up now. Have a nice weekend, all.  ;-)



Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 09:00:07 UTC

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