[rdfweb-dev] Re: bert's email

[Graham Klyne]

I'd prefer to keep the provenance explicit in the data (though this goes 
beyond current RDF standards) so that trust assessments can be re-evaluated 
in light of new information. I'd want to avoid ever having to delete 
information, so temporal provenance information would also be 
relevant. I'm still in -think mode about some of this stuff, but I do have 
some ideas.

#g
--

At 04:48 PM 3/5/02 +0000, Libby Miller wrote:

>sure. no, I havent. In RDF you can't make negative statements though I
>think, at least at the moment. We could roll back and delete incorrect
>statements from a particular source though, If we knew that they were
>false (provenence :)
>
>libby
>
>On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> > So the next question is how we deal with the fact that someone might claim
> > that two email addresses are the same person, and someone else makes a
> > counterassertion that they are not...
> >
> > Got a model for working out whose version of the truth I trust?
> >
> > chaals
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Libby Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> > cc'd rdfweb-dev
> >
> > damn you...reasonable point though. W3C in particular seem to have 2 or
> > 3 emails each, and bristol.ac.uk ones can also be bris.ac.uk. ah well.
> >
> > danbri suggested that adding a bit of rdf which said that a person had
> > both emails might work in combining them, which I think is correct,
> > provided my smushing algorithm is working properly. I'll have to have a
> > look.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > libby
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>rdfweb-dev-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------
Graham Klyne
GK at N...