[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: URI indigestion
Sure, but TimBL didn't invent that. It shows up all over Demming et al. It is the fundamental problem of sustaining an organization and of keeping it efficient by not overloading it with tracking software that the humans quickly learn to outwit. If you have to track them in that detail to get them to work, you are in the wrong business or they are. No, the problem of trust has to rely on being able to assert tests. That is the ontological commitment thing that came up last year. And to agree to the tests. A lot of government work based on contract deliverables is determined by creating, documenting, and authoritatively signing the tests. That works for procurement. Is it a general approach to the semantic web? Maybe for some kinds of ontologies, but I think we will end up with recognized authoritative assertions; eg, the scholastic method of establishing credentials, and even then, it will only work insofar as a body of corroborating work exists. For some ontolologies, we will have to classify them as speculative, merely opinion, possibly misinformed and so on. Trust metrics will be a mixed bag based on other metrics: criticality, knowledge stability, and so on. There is no substitute for an admin module to vette intel. len -----Original Message----- From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@v...] >The semantic web cannot escape the problem of >identifying the "preferred reading". Humans >can't either. Nope, but the web can already help a bit, and a bit more metadata and agents that can use it should help enhance that. Old TimBL note, mentions trust : http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html
|
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
|