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

RE: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: [xml-dev

• To: "'Hunsberger, Peter'" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:11:54 -0500

Or some combination.  My ERD diagrams are created from a metadata 
database that is built by first querying the product for its 
descriptions of itself (eg, tablenames, fieldnames, datatypes, 
fieldwidths, etc.) all of which the framework object APIs 
deliver on request into the metadata db tables.   Then 
these table fields are annotated by the humans  
with descriptions, captions, etc.  All of the outputs 
are just reports regardless of presentation type.  I 
suspect an ontological tool that deals with the continuum 
of possible document types (Glushko's world) could require 
a similar combination of asking the document then annotating 
it.  I certainly could envision that for services where one 
gets some information from the code and then adds formal policy 
stuff to that.

A screen scraper or any analysis done by machine on raw 
data to feed an ontologically-unified system has a heckuva 
job to do.  As Alan Cruse describes it in his paper
"Notes on Meaning in Language" the major problems are 
what words mean (semantic analysis/decomposition), 
how word-meaning varies with context (discourse analysis), 
how word-meanings are related and how they contrast 
(paradigmatic relations) and the syntactic (and idiomatic) 
properties of words (syntagmatic relations).  

Those of course breakdown into a lot of smaller problems 
that are solvable on their own.  I guess one might inquire 
how well the Semantic Web architecture provides solutions 
to these smaller problems and how well that coheres at 
scale.

len


From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@S...]

Defining the metadata is still work for a system like ours, but better
to define metadata than to write code.  Which of course points you at
your other opportunity for metadata extraction: reverse engineering of
the code....

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
• Next by Date: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Previous by thread: RE: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
• Next by thread: Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1 (was Re: InfoWorld agrees with Elliote Rusty Harold)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread