Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Reductionist vs Holistic Semantics
 Hi Folks, Reading [1] this morning stimulated some thoughts ... "The reductionist approach [involves] dissecting the world into the smallest and simplest pieces you can. You look for the solution of some more or less idealized set of problems, somewhat divorced from the real world, and constrained sufficiently so that you can find a solution."[1] As I read this it occurred to me that the RDFS and OWL approach is reductionist. That is, you take the existing world, break it up into pieces, and then document the relationship of those pieces. This documentation of relationships constitutes the "semantics" of those pieces. For example, consider the camera domain. An OWL ontology will break up this domain into pieces such as Camera, SLR, aperture, f-stop, etc. And then it will relate those piece like this: - SRL is a type of Camera - aperture is synonymous with f-stop But is it reasonable to treat semantics with such a sterilized, laboratory approach? "The real world demands ... a more holistic approach. Everything affects everything else, and you have to understand the whole web of interactions."[1] I will argue here that semantics must be approached from a holistic approach (i.e., a complex systems approach). Consider the Camera example above. Is aperture really synonymous with f-stop? I have received many emails from physicists telling me that it is not. (Characterisitic of a true reductionist I ignored their objections saying that such differences were inconsequential/noise.) Yet, if I walk into a camera store the salesperson will use the terms aperture and f-stop interchangeably. The lesson that I learn from this is that the semantics of aperture and f-stop are quite interconnected with, and impacted by other domains such as optics, physics, mathematics, and the economy. There may be untility to treating semantics with a sterilized, laboratory approach. Certainly if this was the 17th century, where computers weren't available, then such a static, taxonomy-like approach would be acceptable. But in today's dynamic, computer-driven world surely we can do better ... much better. I believe that Didier and Mike Champion made mention of Google as tool which provides semantics in a holistic fashion. I found their statements extremely enlightening I totally agree with them. Yes, I think that Google is the best semantics tool today. While Google provides semantics in a holistic fashion, it is more or less semantics for eyeballs, i.e., the results it returns is intended for humans to process. The critical problem is how to create a tool which provides semantics in a holistic fashion *for computers*. Would someone care to take a stab at characterizing the nature of such a tool? /Roger [1] Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop, p. 60-61 
|
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
|
|||||||||
