[LRUG] Linked Data & Ruby

[Matthew Willson]

Yeah it could be done inside the model if every fact is given its own  
URI. (is this typically the case with RDF? forgive my memory).  
Although still need a good standard schema for how to go about that,  
how to do signatures etc, and for this to be widely adopted. I see one  
proposal here: http://rdfa.info/wiki/Security-and-trust#Subject- 
signing although it seems they haven't quite nailed it yet.

Reason I think it could be better as a special metadata property of a  
fact though, is the parallels with modal epistemic logics, which have  
a special modal operator for things like  'agent x believes', and (in  
some cases IIRC) are able to do some pretty clever inferencing about  
trust and distributed knowledge as a result. And just the general  
feeling that, on the web, a fact isn't much use unless you know who's  
asserting it, and making it a part of the model would encourage this.

Timestamp is another very key piece of metadata about a fact or  
assertion, as the lifespan of facts is often not infinite, and quite  
relevant to inferences being made from them... in this case parallels  
with temporal logics.

Anyway getting a bit OT now :)

On 30 Jun 2009, at 14:21, Anthony Green wrote:

>> A start, for me, would
>> be to replace RDF triples (noun predicate noun) with a 'quadruple'
>> which includes the entity asserting the fact (entity asserts noun
>> predicate noun), using some kind of secure open standard for identity
>> with a signature...
>
>
> <parapharse>
> Doesn't RDF have that ability inherently ?
>
>
> “RDF is made of triples” = Z
>
> “Paul thinks Z” = Y
>
> “Bob knows Y” = X
>
> “Dave argues that X” = W
>
> “Jim states that W”  etc etc etc
>
>
> And the more triples you can get linked to your opinion, the more
> authoritative your voice  ?
> </paraphrase>
> <cite="www.twitter.com/r4isstatic" />
>
> -- 
> Anthony Green
> Client Side Developer
> Future Media & Technology for BBC Audio & Music Interactive
> Room 718 | 7th Floor | Henry Wood House
>
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain  
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless  
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in  
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
> 					
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org