- From: finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:11:27 -0400
- To: Giles Hogben <giles.hogben@jrc.it>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Giles Hogben wrote: >... So the problem I am getting at, is how can say, without creating a logical > inconsistency, that one believes a statement in rdf data is false? RDF doesn't provide a general way of making negative statements. Neither does DAML+OIL or OWL, though those languages provide some indirect ways of making negative assertions (e.g., saying that two classes are disjoint) > This is in my view a real problem for applications involved in reputation > and trust. I agree with you here, though one can do a lot of what's needed with the ability to be unable to prove that a fact is true given an ontology and a set of instances. > 2. If rdf statements implicitly carry assertion, how can I specify the > author of the assertion? That is - does the assertion implied by 1. also > imply something about who is making the assertion (is it the author of the > document?) - then how do I change that if I want to in a statement like 7. I think this is also a weakness that will eventually need to be addressed. Some seem to be happy with the idea of associating rdf triples with the URIs where they are found. But, I think we will need to tie the assertions to an "agent" whether that is an individual, a software agent, or an organization. I imagine an ontology that can be used to identify something as an agent and define appropriate properties. One could then add statements to a file that identify the agent to which the assertions in the file can be attributed.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 09:12:19 UTC