The idea wasn’t to get reliable information about topics and concepts, it was to get information about things that are already defined (like my foaf profile, a geoname, etc.).

DBpedia seems great! I saw that I can download it, so if you don’t mind I would put it into PTSW. Also, are you updating that database once in a while?

Well, my assertion probably need some more explanation:

If the URI “http://a.com/rdf” is dereferenceable with URL “http://b.com/rdf”, then a crawler could discard the RDF document that came from “b.com” since it doesn’t share the same domain as the URI. It is what I was meaning.

Yes sure it is. If you are interested in that, so check was will come in the next weeks/month.

Take care,

Fred

an alternative solution to having this authority, would be just to use the existing version of Wikipedia like an ontology, which gives you plenty of URIs for describing common concepts.

We have done some work into this direction at http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/dbpedia/

> That way, they would restrict Bob to define anything about my URI from another web server than my own.

That’s not true. Image a Google like crawler which puts the complete Semantic Web into a single repository. Once you query this repository, you find anything everybody says about you.

I think that Ping the Semantic Web is a big help in building such repositories (I expect there to be many of them).

Cheers

Chris

Yeah well, I scanned your article, and if you take a look at the section 8.2, it is probably the formalization of what I am talking about here (by the way, good article). And the other solutions of that paper are just other ways to archive the goal.

Well, I hope people will use named graph to keep track of them (individul grpahs). It is sure that you can create a level of trust for yeah source of information, but you have to get some metrics to set that trust level, and my proposition was a possible metric. In fact, one could take that, in conjonction with the fact that a document if dereferenceable or not, etc. Then one could create a beautiful little algorithm to set the trust level for each source.

I said authority, but the term is probably not appropriate. In fact, is Wikipedia an authority?

Also, this is not to say if a statement is true or not, but it is to add trust information (call it the way you want) about data sources and statements. When you talk about opinion, remember what I said when I was talking about “conflicting” documents above… this would be the same thing as when opinions are conflicting in some wikipedia articles.

So, change “authority” by “people”. In fact, the authority I was talking about was a Wikipedia like system, and wikipedia is drove by people

Take care,

Fred

You should have a look at context / Named Graphs ( http://www2005.org/cdrom/docs/p613.pdf ) and trust notion (eg: http://trust.mindswap.org/ ) .
Using a triple store that support contexts, you’ll keep provenance of each statement, so you can define trust levels for statements authors, or simply query or avoid some graphs in your queries.

BTW, I don’t think relying on such an authority to say if a statement is true or not (if I understood well) is a good idea.
There can be a lot of way were statements can conflict if you just take them independently, but not depending the context (date, opinion …) – and that’s also why context is important.
Moreover, if I want to say something in RDF, I just say this. Then, trust this or not must be decided by people themselves, I think, not by an authority (even if then, you can imagine generic trust services, as blacklists for spammers).