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

Re: Proposed draft RDF Graph vocabulary

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:28:57 +0000
Message-ID: <406162E9.8040800@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-archive@w3.org, chris@bizer.de

Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> Sorry, this 'super-SW-RDF' is like Kryptonite. If it existed we could 
>> leap tall buildings with a single bound. Trouble is, we can't.
> OK, I'm probably using the term 'interpretation' incorrectly (again).
> Let's just say that insofar as this global 'super-SW-RDF' is concerned,
> we are all using the same URIs in the same way.

Pat's unfortunately right here - if you want to use a URI in RDF and be 
sure that I mean the same as what you do, you need to use
<URI>^^xsd:anyURI ... :( which somewhat shuts out much of the interesting 
stuff. I think that can be partially fixed, but that's another paper!


> Will a MT taking this approach be able to deal with the special case
> whereby in order to determine if (a) a graph is owned by a particular
> authority, when claims about authority are made in the graph itself,
> and (b) whether a given performance (e.g. assertion) is defined by the
> graph itself, or does this presume that all claims about authority and
> all performatives must be external to the graph.
> I.e. does this approach cover the "bootstrapping" problem?


>>> I think we're blurring two issues: assertion and authentication.
>> I do not know what authentication means. Why are we distinguishing it 
>> from assertion?
> Authentication is the verification that (a) the authority exists and
> one is able to obtain the information necessary for testing signatures
> issued by that authority, and (b) testing a signature to verify that
> (i) the signature was issued by the particular authority and (ii) the
> signature identifies the graph in question.
> All of the above is extra-RDF, based on information provided by RDF
> statements.

I have got rough text that covers this distinction now ... give me a few hours.

(I haven't really got through to the end of the message)

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 05:35:32 UTC

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