[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer pizza (was ckae)

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:28:23 -0500
Message-id: <20070916032823.GA18052@xxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:25:21PM -0400, Mills Davis wrote:
> Gary,
> I think this paper aims to articulate knowledge modeling needs of
> scholars studying cultures and the history of ideas. Historicity
> cannot be an afterthought and must accommodate the notion that
> concepts and categories evolve, including category theorys.
> ...
> Historically, there are many good reasons for the information and
> algorithm centric approach. The study of culture, however, calls for a
> richer palette both for knowledge representation, and for reasoning
> processes that encompass different axiologies, epistemologies, and
> research methodologies.
> Description logic plus some overarching notions about logic
> unification (at the FOL level, I believe) is about where we are with
> the semantic web. We can expose data.  But, todays semantic web
> standards do not provide an adequate foundation for the sorts of
> cultural researches, and knowledge-based computing that this author
> and other scholars envision, and are engaged in already.    (01)

Respectfully, I'm afraid I haven't any idea what you are talking about.
The Semantic Web is all about representing information in computer
processable symbol systems.  All there will ever be on the SemWeb are
symbol systems -- more specifically, knowledge representation languages
built on top of some strain of mathematical logic.  That's as rich as
the representational palette gets.  (As Pat suggested, that's a *far*
richer palette than a lot of people seem to realize, but that's another
matter.) No matter how historically or culturally sensitive we become,
no matter was axiology, epistemology, or research methodology we adopt,
we will be reprsenting knowledge in computer processable symbol systems
on the SemWeb.  So whatever it is of historical, cultural, axiological,
or epistemological information you deem important enough to use and move
around on the web is going to take the form of sentences in some
logic-based Krep language -- description logic of some ilk (e.g., in
effect, OWL Lite), some dialect of Common Logic, Datalog, what have you.
So, by my lights, if you think there is something fundamentally flawed
or inadequate about logic-based standards -- OWL, Common Logic, Datalog,
what have you -- then it seems to me to follow that the SemWeb will
never even get out of the starting blocks.    (02)

I myself don't think this is so, but I'm certainly willing to be
convinced that current SemWeb standards are inadequate for the sorts of
"cultural researches, and knowledge-based computing" that you envision.
What would be a clear example of their inadequacy?  Can you demonstrate
in particular with regard to OWL, say, or Common Logic?  Reference to
specific sections of the standards documents would be useful.    (03)

Chris Menzel    (04)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>