Lars Ludwig wrote:
>> Semantic Web must be computable." More specifically, we are talking
>> about information on which "logic-based reasoners" can operate.
>>
>
> It might well be that for many purposes it would totally suffice if a
> 'semantic' / well-structured information source could be searched by a
> more
> or less classical/statistical search engine (delivering
> relevant/statement
> ranked entities and their interconnections, for example).
Yes, if the propositions (or assertions or whatever we call them) can be
treated as discrete objects and retrieved as such. Because the retrieval
of such propositions is more important to humans in many (most?) cases
than the "truth" of such propositions. (01)
> A central
> advantage of using ontologies - in knowledge management at least -
> seems to
> me to be able to de-serialize and better interlink thoughts thus
> allowing us
> to overcome the limitations in knowledge representation / retrieval of
> serialized-natural-language documents, - by use of a controlled, but
> expressive language.
Yes. That's another good way of expressing some of my own thinking. Of
course, we don't want to lose the value of the serialization of document
content, which may be one of many possible serializations of content in
a larger resource, nor do we want to lose access to the content itself.
> Often, the benefit is in the (efficiently delivered and
> intelligently collected) information itself, and not at all in computing
> inferences of new information.
I would add -- and I think you would agree -- "intelligently connected."
For example, cause and effect, sequence, or even broad similarity or
relatedness.
> An important question to ask: How can I express myself without having to
> annotate documents (i.e., do work twice). What's missing in the
> Semantic Web
> vision is a semantic word editor allowing for thought-accompanying
> notations.
>
Ah, that's one of my big complaints, too. It appears to me that software
designers assume such that "personal" semantic tools can be relatively
limited desktop-scale applications. The mistake, I believe, is in
assuming that (1) such activities are relatively simple, (2) can be
performed effectively in isolation from the similar activities of
others, and (3) can be aided substantially with limited software
applications. (02)
In reality, the activity you describe is extremely complex and is
intimately connected with the activities of others. (Sharable meaning
does not come cheaply.) (03)
Effective support of such "semantic" activities requires sophisticated
applications that reference massive information resources, including
ontologies. The tools I am imagining are for all "knowledge workers" and
not just for "semantic specialists." The immediate benefits of such
tools must outweigh their intrusiveness into our specific job roles, and
all such applications must connect meaning across the organization or
group. (04)
This is why Personal Information Managers fail. (05)
Thanks for your comments. (06)
Phil
>
> (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)
|