- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
> I think I'm probably pushing for more of a tangible solution that > the rest of you, due I'm sure to my practical "build it so it will work" > mentality. > I think we are all on-board that goal ... but we also should be doing the best theoretical job we can within the constraints of actually being useful! > > I see that as a publisher's choice. > > Well, it's a publisher's choice what machinery they choose to use > to indicate assertion/authenticity -- but ideally there would be > a well defined model/methodology to do so which most publishers > and agents would both use -- and that requires a reasonable > definition of how those "bootstrapping" interpretations are done. > > As shown in numerous examples, a bunch of statements and the RDF > and OWL MTs don't get you there. You end up either with the > chicken/egg question (how can a graph that is not asserted contain > a statement that asserts it) or the authenticity question (how do > we know that the authority of a graph as identified in a graph > actually is the origin of the graph). > > I think what we need to do is to (eventually) provide a model > that publishers will want to use because it provides useful > answers to the above two questions. > > Patrick Agreed - the most obvious is that the assertion chain should bottom out with a graph that: - asserts itself - and includes its own signature - with a minimum of inference (e.g. none) - possible contains noting else except assertions and signatures of other graphs A potential information-consumer can verify that signature, and particularly if the graph does not contain other stuff, will be happy to accept the graph as true - and the heart of the boot-strap is completed. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 08:39:44 UTC