RE: Metadata spoofing

Hello Bill,

A few annotations.

>-We need code to generate such provenance.
>-We need code to evaluate such provenance.

And we need RDF in good working order for general use. That first, then
these others can follow in due course.

>-We need web architecture for the code and the relating of it to metadata.
>I understand Tim Berners Lee believes digital signatures to be pretty
>fundamental to furthering web architecture. They may well arise due
>to commercial and political pressure to target and legislate people
>and behaviour in the first instance.

Might it be more of the opt-in model - if I want my metadata to be accepted
into a semantic service, I agree to vouch for it.

>-It's not always possible to determine the difference between what JL
>called "misfires" and "abuses" of assertions/informations (more generally
>speech acts): best you can do is identify "infelicities". This a bit like
>trying to determine why exactly the server never responded to my request.

I might have to retract my assertions and state them anew.

Personally, I'm not looking for complete, correct, metadata (and semantic
truth). I'm looking for useful information that I accept I must filter and
evaluate, forming my own opinions, and carefully choosing when to act on
such information.

>-How would we separate infelicity from the way people drift over time in
>way in which they classify things?

The entropy of it all. At each stage in my life, my set of Truths changes.
If I assert them and leave them in effect, eventually I assert both the
truth and falsehood of some Object of Knowledge. 

<-What does it mean to sign metadata? My word is my bond?

I hope not. Only that, I said this. (And I am human and fallible...)

<One way or another, validating uncertain metadata seems like a lot of work.
<Bill de hÓra



Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 21:20:51 UTC