On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Len Yabloko wrote: (01)
> Pat,
>
> You answer makes clear how Semantic Web is supposed to operate.
> However, it seems to leave very important practical consideration
> outside of its scope. (02)
Can you elaborate? (03)
> SB>> Alternatively, one might hypothesise that individuals may
> only
>>> pick up on the knowledge they need - use only the terms without
>>> further inference. That means that they have, to some extent,
>>> misunderstood the term.
>
> I strongly agree. There are implicit assumptions behind any
> inference which are not part of any specification. (04)
No. That is the whole point of the semantic web, and why it is based
on a monotonic system of logics. When you publish some SWeb content,
you take on the responsibility for supplying enough information to
enable a reader to draw the appropriate conclusions. If some
assumptions are left 'implicit', then you, the publisher, have not
done your job properly. However, you are not required to publish the
conclusions themselves: the process of drawing the conclusions is up
to the reader. And a reader may, of course, input content from many
sources and hence be able to draw other conclusions which you had not
anticipated. (05)
> If one wants to apply Semantic Web to a particular problem, then
> some of these assumptions must be evaluated with respect to the
> problem domain. Or are you suggesting that assumptions implicit in
> SW core meta-theory (06)
I am not sure what you mean by 'core meta-theory'. The nearest
interpretation which makes sense woul dbe the specifications of the
actual logics involved (RDF, RDFS, OWL, etc.) and their semantics. If
this is what you mean, then yes, indeed... (07)
> are never in conflict with any problem domain, (08)
... that is being assumed. The logics themselves are indeed 'domain-
neutral'. They can be used to describe any topic under the sun. (09)
> as long as the problem defined in terms of the same meta-theory? In
> that case we are forced into Closed World Assumption which may not
> be practical for distributed knowledge. (010)
No, we are not forced into a closed world assumption. I have no idea
how you came to this conclusion. (011)
>
> PH>No. They can do as much inference or as little as they like. But
> their
>> not doing so does not imply that they are MISunderstanding anything.
>> They may need only a very limited set of valid conclusions to do
>> their
>> job. That is not misunderstanding.
>
>
> But what if one can not draw necessary conclusions to do the job -
> where do we go from here? (012)
Then the agent in question is not able to use the semantic web, ie it
is in the same position as all agents were before the SWeb was created. (013)
> Does SW offer any means for negotiating additional required
> knowledge to make further inferences? (014)
Any agent, even yourself, can of course go looking on the Web for
additional knowledge. That is pretty much what the Web is all about,
after all. There are aids to such a search, such as Swoogle. Most
interesting SWeb applications use knowledge from multiple sources in
this way. It is of course much more efficient if you already have
some idea where to look. (015)
> SB>> This raises two questions; firstly, how can one quantify the
> level
>>> of misunderstanding? and secondly, how can one then determine if the
>>> level of misunderstanding is significant?
>>>
>
> I think that is the question of great practical significance. The
> "level of misunderstanding" can be replaced with more formal
> criteria based on specific conclusions that could not be made. Then
> some of initial assumptions can be revised and resulting "damage"
> assessed to answer the second question. (016)
Welcome to the semantic web. I suggest reading some of the now quite
extensive technical literature before expressing any more views in
public. (017)
Pat (018)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (019)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|