- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:41:24 +0100
- To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com, chris@bizer.de, phayes@ihmc.us, www-archive@w3.org
>>It may simply take the statement about the authority at face value >>and believe it. >That sounds like a VERY poor idea. Think of the mindset of spammers. >Suppose one could generate, that easily and that rapidly, things that >looked just like purchase orders to be processed by software, You are confusing different use cases - there is lots of RDF that is used already in this way without being a target of spam, but because of these weaknesses RDF is not currently suitable for purchase orders. For instance there is a piece of RDF at www.w3.org claiming that Pat Hayes is the editor of rdf-mt. Now, since I wish to improve my CV I could create a piece of RDF that claimed that Jeremy Carroll edited rdf-mt, but it really isn't worth the bother! (nothing against rdf-mt) If I read that piece of RDF I get it from www.w3.org which gives me grounds to believe it given what it is talking about. However I am beginning to see what you are on about with "we need to do an MT job on this stuff" - I am not convinced we *need* an MT job, but it could look nice and I am beginning to see what it might be like: Essentially it is truth conditions on rdfg:hasSignature (or something like that), which actually tie in with the digital signature specs and existing (or future) digital signature technology, so that a forged piece of RDF with an rdf:hasSignature in it is, to the limits of crypto, known to be false - which looks like a very good thing. It is not that any piece of RDF self-verifies, but merely that the hasSignature triple can be grounded in other specs - with truth conditions being drawn from them. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 03:42:52 UTC