Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFutu
 Yes, that is the case. The concept of authority is based on trust, the consent, in this instance, of the governed. For the practical operational issues, that is all that is necessary in the broad perspective of global operations. In more local operations, it isn't enough because the pockets of non-cooperators can be large enough to disrupt the system's efficiency to the degree that the broad operational result is gridlock. As put by an Internet pundit on the subject of bipartisan cooperation, "Sure, I'll pet your elephant and you can kiss my a**." Not a pretty future and perhaps inevitable given the historical scenario but we need not debate it here for the example. When we look at integrating ontologies, we have to consider that, taking the Topic Map stance, we are integrating opinions. As pointed out in earlier emails, the problems of lots of little noisy systems which contribute to the binary decision result in a control adjudicating the decision when the votes are unacceptably close. That control has authority by legitimate or illegitimate means, and establishing legitimacy can be a very tough dogfight on the WWW. The US Supreme Court has it by proclamation but with one decision just lost much of its credibility in the point of view of a large number. So, the ability of the ontology to advise credibly becomes a behavioral issue and that behavior has a statistical characteristic with regards to the ontological commitment. We can make statistical assertions about that and that is all. Again, the ontological commitment is to the authority of the ontology that the relationships expressed are credible and useful. Operational means for creating the ontology are part of the authoritative credential of the owner of the ontology. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Martin Bryan [mailto:mtbryan@s...] Len. > > It seems reasonable to test the existence of > assertions. We can look at multiple ontologies > (contexts of assertions) and discover that multiple > sources have the same assertion so establish > evidence by multiple sources. We can never > formally prove the assertion unless we both > agree to a test of fact and commit to behave > accordingly in a testable way. And who will test the testers? One man's proven assertion is another man's obvious mistake, as adherents of any two religions will tell you, volubly. The real key is "What proportion of a community are willing to identify the same stated meaning as being valid to their understanding of a term/phrase. If 75% of Americans agree that "George Bush is the legitimate president of the US" is or is not that enough to make the phrase "George Bush, US President" a meaningful one from 20th January 2001, even if it is not true today, and will not be true on 20th January 2020. Creating a test for the truth of the statement will not help if the validity of the choice of judges is challenged, as was the case in the Florida and Supreme Court rulings. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
