- From: Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:00:33 -0400
- To: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > >Seconded: We are in a similar situation with agent-based command >information systems; having an audit trail and being able to timestamp >and attribute statements is absolutely essential here, especially as we >are likely to encounter deliberate misinformation which must be filtered >out at a later time. > >For a local database we could achieve this 'outside of RDF' using a >custom framework, but we might want to be able to pass this attribution >information to and from other parties, in a standard way. Is there a >convenient way of doing that without reification? > >Regards, > >David Allsopp >DERA Malvern >UK actually, although we've been discussing this a lot in DAML+OIL committee (under the name tagging) I've come to realize that there's a better way to do this in the ontology world -- define an ontology in which objects have these properties and use them -- the languge is then in the standard, but different communities can work on different tagging schemes Essentially, create a DAML ontology with Agent:Message :a daml:class . Agent:TimeStamp :a daml:property rdfs:range Agent:Message rdfs:domain <define your own or use XML datatype> . etc. Later, you use instances of these in the obvious way Agent:Message11111988 :a Agent:Message Agent: TimeStamp "4:00PM Tuesday" [or your favorite] . You can now have relatively arbitrary data structures, they're in a relatively stable language parsable with either RDF or XML tools, and you can exchange things freely with colleagues using various DAML or RDF tools. I'm working on one of these for exchange of proofs, and there are other ways to go. -- Prof. James Hendler Program Manager DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 jhendler@darpa.mil
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 18:59:32 UTC