[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:59:13 -0600

This is precisely so.  This is why the terms 
"record of authority", "authoritative source" 
and "process ownership" are introduced into these 
discussions.   Specific classification databases 
must be developed and made available as services 
by credible authorities who control/own a process 
and offer a guarantee over that process by 
which the classification is created and to 
which all authorities represented as such 
attest as having completed in accordance with 
the public contract.  

This is no different than using 
NIST, ISO, United Labs or any other credited 
authority as the owner source (creates the 
context of authority) for the resource.  

Such services can be costed.  The reason 
for the tremendous effort toward standardization 
of the representations made available by 
these services is to control cost under 
a guarantee of quality of service.  

If semantic services are to be used, they 
must have a corresponding means to guarantee 
and vouchsafe their authority.  Otherwise, 
the SW becomes snake oil law.  It is one 
thing to offer a free semantic service; 
caveat emptor.  A semantic service that is 
to be used in formal contracting will more 
likely be caveat vendor.  You need a means 
to create and establish the terms and conditions 
of such services.

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...]

What is needed is a standard way of identifying the contexts in which
resources have been created. This is where RDF could help, if it could be
used alongside standardized classification schemes. Rather than being a
general purpose tool that can represent any relational database, it needs,
if the semantic web is to be a usable thing, to become a set of specific
classification databases with recorded meanings that can be referenced by
those seeking to associate meaning with resources.  Until this happens the
web will never be a knowledge-base.

Names and/or addresses are not enough to promote understanding.

• Prev by Date: Full disclosure
• Next by Date: Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
• Previous by thread: Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
• Next by thread: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread