''The internet is replete with data that is "inappropriate" by being
outright false, but even with data that was validly captured and
reported, it is not often easy to find out the values of the context
variables.'' (01)
That's correct and right. Here is a fresh example I got on the SW listing: (02)
''I'm pleased to announce the Cypher 1.9 demo available now online. This
announcement proceeds the official release announcement to come in the next
few days containing feature details. The demo runs the Monrai Standard
dataset, and can be pointed against several SPARQL Endpoints, including
dbpedia.
Cypher is a natural language transcoder which generates the RDF triple or
SPARQL query representation of phrases and sentences.
Some example outputs are:
- the person who played in a film (in dbpedia)
- the writers who played in a film (in dbpedia)
- the actors wrote what (in dbpedia)
- the actors who are married wrote what (in dbpedia)
- the presidents who were married to someone wrote what (in dbpedia)
- the people who wrote some books (in dbpedia)
- Bruce Willis stars in what (in dbpedia)
- the people who were influenced by actors (in dbpedia)'' (03)
That's why I am suspicious of all sorts of cross-divisions,
cross-classifications and poly-hierarchies. One may classify some people,
say actors, according to age and gender, or according to marriage status,
age and gender, or by promiscuity, marriage status, age and gender, so on ad
infinitum. This is the sure way to generate an enormous heap of useless
data, leading to raw data big crunch, on which only statistical engines,
like Google, might profit, although temporally; crunch is crunch, even in
Africa. Apprehending this coming data megamess, good minds put forward the
big idea of ontology for data-processing machines, ruling to classify all
things according to the real properties of essence, and not according to
accidental marks, singularities, and peculiarities. (04)
Azamat Abdoullaev (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Barkmeyer" <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology (06)
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> There's nothing new in that article:
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory
>> The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete
>>
>> Ibn Taymiyya said it earlier and better. ...
>> It all depends on how general your generalizations are, and how many
>> exceptions there are. If the exceptions outnumber the generalizations,
>> it's far better to go back to raw data and use analogical reasoning.
>> Taymiyya said that, and he was right.
>
> But there is a host of difficulties with that, and the internet has made
> them manifest. The "data deluge" doesn't often come with clear
> "provenance metadata" -- who collected this data, and what were the
> circumstances and method of collection. It is easy to draw erroneous
> analytical conclusions, or find numerous fake exceptions to a
> theoretical result, by considering "inappropriate" data to be relevant.
> The internet is replete with data that is "inappropriate" by being
> outright false, but even with data that was validly captured and
> reported, it is not often easy to find out the values of the context
> variables.
>
> The advantage of legal precedent is that you have a well-known and
> reliable set of records that contains all of the contextual information
> that was available to the judges at the time the decision was made. So
> one can argue not only for precedent, but also about the relevance of a
> particular decision to the issue at hand, based on other elements in the
> context of that decision.
>
> [You have to realize that NIST is a scientific institution that prides
> itself on scientific conservatism. We publish a lot of data, and a lot
> of analytical and theoretical results. But when we generalize beyond
> what we have observed and can prove, we call it 'hypothesis'. Good
> science will always survive the deluge of undocumented data.
> Credibility is more important than visibility.]
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|