Print

Print


That reassures me greatly. {grin} I would not have been able to agree with the first meaning, but I can easily agree with the second. I wanted to clarify your intent.

It's not at all clear to me that managing provenance in the global web is going to be possible without some of those "fairly 
technical mechanisms" (e.g. named graphs or ), but there's a lot to be gained from simpler measures. One reason some of those more complicated measures become attractive is that they can fulfill the need for a standard way to discuss an URI as an identifier directly and not as a pointer to something identified, so that one can make assertions about it as an identifier without making assertions about the thing it identifies. This is subtle and can cause confusion, as we are seeing on this list in the last few days.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 10, 2014, at 1:11 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
> 
> More the second than the first.
> 
> For the record, I do not think it dangerous or crazy for you or anyone 
> to publish assertions using VIAF URIs as their subject, but I do believe 
> there are potentially some serious implications when one does such a 
> thing.  Anyone can literally say anything about anything so, regardless, 
> it is a real issue that exists today and must be managed versus outlawed or 
> otherwise made impossible.  It has generally been managed to date by 
> people choosing /not/ to make assertions using other's URIs as subjects.
> 
> If people or organizations mint their own URI and make assertions using 
> that URI as the subject, then, yes, it helps with managing provenance 
> and a number of other long-term issues.
> 
> There's been lots of talk about provenance and the like in a global 
> graph of data, but I feel most of those discussions rely on fairly 
> technical mechanisms, the complexity of which outweigh the simplicity of 
> minting one's own URI.  (Also, the provenance statements will need their own 
> URIs!)
> 
> Yours,
> Kevin
> 
> 
> On 07/10/2014 12:43 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Kevin--
>> 
>> Are you arguing in what I quote below:
>> 
>> 1) That it is dangerous or "crazy" for me to publish assertions using VIAF URIs as their subject, period?
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> 2) That it is better for me to mint URIs of my own because it helps us manage provenance, or helps me maintain my data over the long term, or for some other reason(s)? (While I also maintain authority/co-reference information that will be required by anyone who wants to interpret my assertions, e.g. "ex:abcd bf:hasAuthority viaf:abcd .")
>> 
>> Or something else entirely that I'm not getting?
>> 
>> ---
>> A. Soroka
>> The University of Virginia Library
>> 
>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:25 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> For example, with a bf:Authority approach, one could do this:
>>> 
>>> ex:1234   bf:creator  ex:abcd
>>> 
>>> ex:abcd   rdf:type bf:Person
>>> ex:abcd   bf:note  "This person came here once in 1965.  It was cool."
>>> ex:abcd   bf:hasAuthority viaf:abcd
>>> 
>>> If a VIAF URI were used, this might happen:
>>> 
>>> ex:1234   bf:creator  viaf:abcd
>>> viaf:abcd  bf:note  "This person came here once in 1965.  It was cool."
>>> 
>>> Are there mechanisms we could put in place to hopefully inhibit this?  Probably, but crazy data finds its way everywhere and it's probably impossible to stop this from happening.