RE: Issues with XML and Semantic Web ?
One approach to the upper ontology, or any ontology really, is to accept that it is, like law, an artifice. It works as well as it works when it works and that is as well as it will work. Like your car, it gets a job done and when it doesn't, you or someone else can fix it. The question of the semantic web is the golem problem: how much power and authority will you give the artifice over your choices? Otherwise, don't mistake a tool for the truth of the results of using the tool. A computer doesn't know how to add 2 + 2. It can be used to simulate that operation and give a repeatable result. If 2 + 2 = 4 for an acceptable number of uses, it is a useful tool. If you hit the one context in which that isn't true, it fails. So understand in advance what you are committing to and what the bet is. An interesting question might be, when is an ontology expressing something non-trivial? Where there are doubts about the value of the semantic web, they are related to that question. The cost of an expert system proved to be very high for the utility it provided over a deliberately limited domain. The assumption seems to be that some of the scaling magic of the WWW will be obtained for the Semantic Web, but again, networks scale precisely because they are NOT meaningful. So this bet may not be a good one. Treat ontologies like law: to be useful, law must be testable or enforceable. Thus the notion of commitment to rule by law and to an ontology (see Thomas Gruber). In one view one might say, an ontology is a computable means for expressing a precedent. Expressing and applying a precedent is a matter of judgement, not truth. It is also useful to inquire of how often you will find a system useful based on the frequency with which it halts and asks you a clarifying question, and the value in terms of work when it does that? Interupts are expensive. len From: Irene Polikoff [mailto:irene@t...] Yes, this is exactly right. Semantic Web is all about working with simple unitary ontologies and having software agents go at them. I don't think you are missing anything. One of the motivations for common "upper" ontologies is that you support the interoperability of your ontologies by maiking them all consistent with the UO. So this could be a solution, but I have difficulty believing in the feasibility of making this happen, although there are people who swear by it. I know of some work on reasoners that manage contexts, so that you don't have to import all of your foreign ontology to do reasoning, but this still has the issue of how one knows it is consistent when you do. Irene
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