SV: SV: [RDF] Non-fact statements

[Stefan Andersson]

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

A friend of mine has examined the 'Cogito ergo sum' reasoning and concluded
it was based on faulty presumtions...
 
> 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.

Yes, of course. Optimization thru faith. But: this is an implicit trust. One
_could_ think of an architecture where even this had to be made explicit.
Gerck (once again...) uses encryption as a 'routing' mechanism: distribute
encrypted data freely, only the correct recipient will be able to open it,
and the recipient would always be sure it was from the right sender...
 
> > 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) ;-)

Hihi. $self->lift_by_hair($self)
 
> > 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.

Yoda: "No, there is no 'try'. Either you do, or you don't." (or something
like it)
 
> 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.

Hmmm... actually, trust is a multidimensional vector, consisting of all the
trust-points.
/Stefan