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

RE: semantics in schema (xsd)

• To: 'Michael Champion' <mc@x...>, 'XML DEV' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:51:49 -0600

That's the golem problem.  We discussed it in some 
detail here a few years ago, and I published an 
article on it in the defunct Markup journal from 
MIT.   The problem comes down to giving the golem 
both power AND authority, and those are a bad 
combination for a device unless domains are 
sensibly restricted.  That is a root fear of 
the technologies we are developing.

We can describe our cultures and variations 
in semantic web systems, but we must never turn 
decisions regarding our cultures over to these 
systems.  The golem is only a bad thing when 
it assumes authority and has power.  The same 
may be said for human leadership, but that is 
the means by which we are governed, so we must 
choose wisely among those who choose our choices.

Dark matter probably will change the ontologies 
of physics.  I doubt a 'passion play' will 
change many beliefs.  I hope a demonstration 
of the facts of human relationships will.

Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.

len


From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

But seriously folks, if profound assumptions baked deep into most human 
cultures can change, and even the laws of physics are in turmoil (I'm 
thinking of "dark energy", not that this is likely to affect very many 
ontologies or class hierarchies!), what does this say about the utility 
of investing in building deep semantic hierarchies, whether they be 
enshrined in OWL or Java or whatever?

• Prev by Date: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Next by Date: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Previous by thread: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Next by thread: RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread