- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:47:23 +0000
- To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
It has been a while, but when I thought about this I came to the conclusion that just one of (context-id) or (stating-id) was sufficient. E.g. given a (stating-id), (contexts) can be created as RDF containers and their contents can be the required collection of (stating-id). Or, if (context-id) is used, then statements or groups of statements can be isolated and referenced by placing them into separate (contexts). #g -- At 15:05 18/12/03 +0100, Chris Bizer wrote: >Hi everybody, > >we did some brainstorming about trust, context and the justification of >query results and ended up with: >- an extended RDF data model based on quintuples (a triple plus two >additional elements: context and statement ID). >- a trust-oriented query language for this data model >- the concept of justification trees for tracking data provenance and data >lineage. > >See: http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/trustcontextjustification/ > >Our approach is much more data-oriented than the proof-oriented work of >McGuinness and da Silva published at ISWC 2003 [1]. But we think for SemWeb >applications which don't do heavy inferenceing such a approach could be >sufficient. > >Is somebody working on similar approaches? >Do you know any other groups working on the topic? > >What do you think about extending the RDF model for capturing context? >What do you think about the approach in general? > >We are looking forward to any feedback :-) > >Regards > >Chris Bizer > >http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/ueber_uns/team/chris_bizer.htm > >[1] >http://www.cs.toronto.edu/semanticweb/resource/reference/iswc03bestpapers/iswc03-infrastructure-web-explanations.pdf ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 16:59:35 UTC