RE: httpRange proposed text

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