Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
 I am not an ontologist. I can't even play one. Carol Ellerbeck has the background and made the following post to my queries about authority awhile back. I repost here for a sanity check. She makes the same point about closed systems. On the other hand, Simon and Walter make valid points about the problems of lots of local systems summing a decision based on locally correct but globally conflicting assertions. OTOH, isn't that why we have Topic Maps and RDF, such that, like XML, at least the basic framework is shared and you can try to chase down the noisy sources? Carol sez: "I am afraid that authority is established through respect. A system is defined for a certain group of users and guidelines for usage are established. Those using the system mutally agree to respect the guidelines (or they create their own system). And jargon DOES have to be incorporated into the system, no question. But how this gets done depends on the system you create (which should distinguish between use of a "taxonomy" and use of a "thesaurus"). Finally, faceted classification schemes can be used to handle fuzziness and inter-domain associations (the taxonomy dictates the facets but those facets can be flexibly combined in many ways to create associations; you are not locked into a rigid system - - in my mind, the only way to go on the web ......)." By the way, TimBLs speech about the Semantic Web and the slides are available from Dr Dobb's Technet. I found the slides easier to comprehend. In accordance with Shannon's clear observations, he also notes this is a machine bound system, not a universal semantic. Much of this thread has been devoted to illuminating concerns about how to establish trusted interoperation. Then we can talk about the costs. Traditionally, these things are expensive beasties and that really does raise the spectre of propriety just as a lot of DTDs developed in industry were declared private IP despite the fact that usually makes their utility almost zero. I suspect we will see a lot of volunteer work on ontologies and well as private and public funding for such. Our concern should be to establish quality constraints and clarify a model for fielding these that cleanly fits into the services paradigm. That can make costs recoverable and cleanly answers questions about the means by which an ontological commitment is established. 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: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] I myself have mentioned many times that my observations apply to closed systems and that I don't claim any insight into how to make something like a semantic Web work. My perception is that Len, Martin and Jonathan don't make much more radical claims. I'm still quite interested in hearing the whole "semantic Web" story. I'm sorry I missed the XML 2000 session because I'd like to learn what the true ambition is, and the practical developments required before it can be realized. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
