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

RE: Beyond Ontologies

• To: 'Didier PH Martin' <martind@n...>
• Subject: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:37:55 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Once denoted, ask the humans who own the URIs. 
If they don't resolve it, the conflict IS information.

Consider the identity/privacy problems of the web in 
general.  If there were one authoritative profile 
for a human using the system, should that profile 
be owned by the server owner, or by the human that 
it profiles?  If the profile has some official 
standing such as might be found in a credit record, 
shouldn't the person so named and credentialed be 
able to challenge it?  Say an author owns an article and finds 
it being linked to by sites that are not topically 
related.  Should the author have the right to refuse 
those links?  

The feedback element of this system, the system that 
interacts with this system intelligently is the human. 
While semantic webs are a neat way to index and discover 
relationships, intelligent elements have the means and 
motive to refuse them.  It should be adequate to 
create a system that denotes that multiple senses 
exist for some term, even discover that these senses 
are not partial differences, but opposites, then 
message the owners to inform them of the conflicts. 
If they wish to resolve them, means can be provided. 

If not, c'est vrai.

Agents that negotiate on behalf of their owners 
are trained by the owner to recognize and report 
a non-negotiable conflict.  A negotiable conflict 
is not a conflict of meaning but of values.  A 
conflict of meaning is an error of identity.  The 
URI bifurcated or was assigned erroenously.

len


From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@n...]

Hi Len

Len said:
Do you need to resolve the difference or denote the difference?  

Didier replies:
Beginning by denoting the difference in an efficient and elegant way would
be fine. At least, this would become explicit.

Didier said:
>Problem 1: 
>----------
>How to get access to the ontology behind an RDF description? Where is it
>located where in an RDF fragment? How do I get the link to fetch such
>definition?

Len replied:
Access is easy is the URI resolves to the location of the ontology.  If 
not, you search.  If you search, you are back to the Shannon dilemma of 
having sufficient or insufficient means to choose.

Didier replies:
Precisely.

Len said:
Why do topics in mail lists tend over time to not 
reflect the actual contents of the particular emails?  Think 
about the debate some months back on the meaning of 'resource' 
in web architecture.  Even something that dominating as a 
keyword has a very nebulous meaning.  That is something 
of what interests me because it demonstrates that no matter how 
complete the ontology or how high the frequency of the term, 
the humans will drift away from it and topical based tracking will get
noisy.  

Didier replies:
Very good point.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Beyond Ontologies
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: OT? - Fuzzy logic and paradoxes
• Next by Date: RE: OT? - Fuzzy logic and paradoxes
• Previous by thread: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• Next by thread: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread