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

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:10:59 +0200
Message-Id: <AC8566C3-7660-11D8-A56E-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>


On Mar 12, 2004, at 21:31, ext Pat Hayes wrote:

> ...
>> The graph G1 is independent from the agent. Asserting a graph is a 
>> relation
>> between the agent and the graph.
>> It can be done everywhere. The graphs can be moved around, stored in
>> different documents or repositories and whatever.
>
> Agree with all of the above. Note however that there is no particular 
> reason to believe any such claim of who asserted what, unless it is 
> made by the asserter, which gets us into questions of how to identify 
> the author of such a claim. I am happy to punt on giving an answer to 
> that question, but I'd like us to identify it clearly as one that 
> needs to be answered in order to anchor trust securely.
>

Agreed.

Though I think that this is the question that needs to be answered 
*first*,
since if you can't answer that question, then you cannot presume that
the rest of your model will ever be workable, and how you approach
answering the other questions may be strongly influenced by how you
answered the first.

Any attempt to answer the other questions without answering the first
are not (to me) particularly interesting since they are all just
floating around in "la la land" and who knows if they can ever be
put to practical use.

I think, though, that we have the kernel of an answer to that first
question.

Patrick

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 04:11:03 UTC

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