- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:03:03 -0500
- To: "'Miles Sabin'" <miles@milessabin.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Because you can't get "truth" out of this system. You can only use other systems to obtain a degree of confidence. That is why you can't fire on acquisition (identity). You need other systems to give you a confidence rating. You don't always need them and in the same degree for every acquisition; the classfication of the range of potential classes OR the criticality of the response determines that. Identity is not classification. In some cases, just having the URI is enough: www.yahoo.com is enough to start. www.fireMissile.org requires more confidence. See incident where US destroyer downs Iranian airliner. They did query for confirmation, but none of the confirmations alone or in combination yielded a high enough confidence rating to justify the response. Later it was decided that the authority was sufficient (commander on scene can act) to derail any punitive actions. Yet on the face of the results, the decision was wrong. Even context cannot always yield truth. Build the Semantic Web because it useful. Be very wary of betting your life on it. len -----Original Message----- From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com] Where does this leave the use of RDF when it comes to, say, building reputation networks? Suppose I want to assert of http://www.crooks.com/ that it's untrustworthy: if the owner gets to determine the truth of assertions concerning that URI, then it seems unlikely that I'll be able to do it.
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 14:03:35 UTC