- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Sandro Hawke wrote: >Imagine users asking questions like "According to The Times, Is Dubya >President?". The Times judges the trustworthiness of many sources, so >users don't have to. (Of course users may chose to, if, for instance, >they don't really trust The Times. But they shouldn't always have >to.) > >So RDF could really use a way to say another document is true. It >might turn out to be owl:imports, or the URI-Ref mechanism I'm >proposing, or something else.... EARL (an RDF vocabulary) says "so-and-so claims the following". (This is something that in my opinion might be lacking from Dublin Core application -- the ability to say who created a particular dublin core record and distinguish that from the resource dublin core is describing, but that's for another day). In many use cases, the assertor is in fact a piece of software the user is running, and they are going to be happy to go with it. But they always have the choice to be more picky. In the case where there are conflicts (EARL was designed for conformance asessments in areas where there are almost guaranteed to be conflicts) it is going to be important for the user to look at why there is a conflict and sort it out. Some users may automatically add that they do or don't trust a couple of given sources. And the rest of the time they don't really bother worrying. Nothing needed in RDF - but user agents need to check when there is a conflicting model and proide a way of asking the user to resolve it, or of representing the contradiction to the user. After all, RDF actually can allow two contradictory statements. They just imply interesting ways of handling them in user agents. Cheers Chaals
Received on Saturday, 26 October 2002 11:19:38 UTC