SV: [RDF] Non-fact statements

[Jonas Liljegren]

Stefan Andersson <Stefan.Andersson@ullmans.com> writes:

> > > > Non-fact statements from a non-specified model could just be placed in
> > > > some special model that defaults to untrusted.
> > > 
> > > Well, actually, I've always found the division between 'fact' and
> > > non-fact a bit silly. There is no such thing as a 'fact', only trusted
> > > or non-trusted statements/data.
> > 
> > Yes. But you just have to believe in something before you can start
> > mistrust.  
> 
> Hmm.. I would change that to 'without trust there can be no communication,
> but without communication, there is nothing to trust.' So I guess you're
> right. I think that starting point would be 'the things I know I know' - a
> single trust statement. Or set of trust statements. ROOT statement. Hmmm..

I think I am what I think, I think... Or something. ;)

I just say that you always trust the Wraf service. I you don't trust
Wraf. You can't trust it then it says that you trust/mistrust other
things.


> > The system base logic has a whole lot of RDF implicit and
> > explicit. Those base statements must be trusted.  My first thought was
> > to consider fact statements the unquestioned truths and mark all
> > "user" and imported statements as non-facts.
> 
> Actually, what we do is optimizing thru faith. There is nothing 'must' about
> it. And I don't always trust my own memory. I could import faulty or
> fraudulent data.

Ok. I will implement the $self->leap_of_faith($model) ;-)


> > > A model can be judged trustworthy based on its internal consistency, or
> > > its backing by an authority. There is _always_ an issuer of the
> > > statement, implicit or explicit. The trick is wheter the system
> > > _remembers_ (is aware of and has retained the knowledge of) who the
> > > issuer was.
> > 
> > Wraf ties a model to every statement. That model will hold that data.
> > i don't know how much has been done in modeling this in RDF. Maby it
> > would be better to wait with the details.  But the main functionality
> > is to get a level of trust for a specific statement. that could maby
> > be calculated from the statement content and the model.  That is: the
> > trust can differ acording to the type of statement.
> 
> Hmmm. I'm not entirely with you on that last statement. But I can quote
> Gerck - 'there are no degrees of trust. Either you trust, or you dont.' -
> and I think he is right.

So you har only 80% sure of it? ;-)

I like the Fuzzy logic expert systems.   But most of the base logic
will use binary truth.


My statement above was about P3P type things.  If you know that an
agent is an expert in one topic but don't know much in another topic,
you would ascribe diffrent levels of trust dependent on the subject
type or maby property.


-- 
/ Jonas  -  http://jonas.liljegren.org/myself/en/index.html