John, (01)
I do not want to detract from the broad message (with which I agree), but
your comment (copied below) can be misinterpreted. (02)
JS> No technology from stone carving to supercomputers has ever made
> any fundamental change in the ways that people think, talk, and behave.
> Technology might speed up and facilitate many kinds of interactions, but
it never
> changes human nature. (03)
There is an 'orality and literacy' community that studies how information
technology and changes in the way people *think* are linked - and there is
lots of evidence that there are changes. Whether these amount to a change in
human nature is probably debatable.
A good introduction to these topics is these two books: (04)
Orality and Literacy (New Accents)
Walter J. Ong
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415281296/qid=1132048955/sr=2-1/re
f=sr_2_11_1/202-8651759-1197416 (05)
The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and
Reading
David R. Olson
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521575583/qid=1132049013/sr=1-18/r
ef=sr_1_0_18/202-8651759-1197416 (06)
Regards,
Chris (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 25 March 2010 03:00
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Inventor of the Web Gets Backing to Build Web
of
> Data
>
> Azamat, Pavithra, and Paola,
>
> Before commenting on your notes, I'd like to emphasize that I strongly
support
> the goals of the Semantic Web. My major complaint is that the original
goals of
> supporting semantics have been lost in a mass of syntactic detail. In
fact, the
> single most misleading aspect of the Semantic Web is the word 'web'. It
places
> the focus on technology rather than semantics. That has led some people
to
> make some horribly misguided assumptions:
>
> 1. It is possible or even desirable to distinguish different
> kinds of semantics for different kinds of applications.
>
> 2. The WWW was virgin territory for which new standards and
> technology could be defined without integration with and
> a migration path from a half century of legacy systems.
>
> 3. All previous work in semantics for databases, software
> specification, artificial intelligence, and natural
> language processing was irrelevant and could be ignored.
>
> 4. Character sets are the foundation for syntax, and
> syntax is the foundation for semantics.
>
> 5. Unique identifiers, by themselves, will magically solve
> the thorniest problems of semantics.
>
> 6. Having unique identifiers that point to unique definitions
> will magically cause billions of people to pay attention
> to those definitions and use them consistently.
>
> Just a glance at history shows that none of these assumptions have any
validity
> whatever. No technology from stone carving to supercomputers has ever
made
> any fundamental change in the ways that people think, talk, and behave.
> Technology might speed up and facilitate many kinds of interactions, but
it never
> changes human nature.
>
> AA> What it is really missing here: standard ontology and
> > semantics, this we are steadily repeating for a long while now.
>
> The most important developments were standardized terminologies for every
> branch of science, engineering, medicine, law, business, and the arts.
Those
> developments began a century before the SW.
>
> There was a lot of work on technology and standards for knowledge bases,
> databases, and software specification since the 1960s.
> But the SW developers ignored that. In fact, RDFS and OWL are a major
step
> *backwards*. If you look at publications on knowledge representation,
there
> has been a noticeable *decline* in quality since the 1990s -- largely
because
> many of the new publications focus on syntax rather than semantics.
>
> AA> It is more politics than science "...This Institute will help
> > place the UK at the cutting edge of research on the Semantic Web > and
> other emerging web and internet technologies." G. Brown.
>
> I agree. But the UK made drastic cuts in their universities recently,
which caused
> many good professors and young researchers
> to leave. I don't know the exact amounts of the funding, but
> I suspect that they cut much more than they are adding.
>
> AA> First, it makes a big difference to invent the web of data or
> > the web of knowledge.
>
> Those are just buzz words. What really matters is what kinds of logics,
> ontologies, methodologies, and supporting tools become available.
>
> AA> Second, it is in the nature of humans to create something new
> > destroying (replacing) the old things and structures. Sombart > and
Shumpeter
> formulated this habit as a critical socal/economic > phenomenon, dubbed
as
> "creative destruction" or rather destructive > creation.
>
> Sometimes the new constructions are improvements, and sometimes they're
> not. In the US during the 1950s, there was a strong push for "urban
renewal"
> and "slum clearance". That often meant bulldozing thriving neighborhoods
of
> working class people, and putting them into "projects", which were huge
> buildings surrounded by a little fringe of grass. Most of those projects
were
> disasters.
>
> If you look at the most successful innovations of the past decade
> -- technologies such as AJAX, Flash, and PHP or companies such as Youtube,
> Facebook, Twitter, etc. -- all of them were started by small groups of
creative
> individuals, none were based on SW technology, and none of them came out
of
> government-funded "institutes".
>
> AA> Lets hope that the Web Science is a next generation metascience,
> > and Sir Timothy Berners Lee is going to give the world another >
decisive
> innovation.
>
> Sir Tim was one of those creative individuals like the ones who founded
Google
> and other start ups. He deserves a great deal of credit for that.
>
> But remember the "second system syndrome" as stated by Fred Brooks:
> "Beware the man who is designing his second system." Instead of the
original
> small, clean little system, he succumbs to the temptation to put in all
the
> features that he didn't have the time or funding to include in the first
system.
> Check Google for "second system".
>
> PK> I do believe that semantic web has been in operation in some form
> > or an another already! I do not agree that it has not taken off...
>
> Yes, there are some applications. But the rate of adoption and
development of
> the SW technology has been painfully slow compared to the speed of the
> original WWW. Other technologies like AJAX and PHP grew much, much faster
> than RDF & OWL, even though nobody was promoting them.
>
> As I said before, commercial web sites, large and small, were built around
a
> relational DB. If the SW had been better integrated with that technology,
it
> would have been adopted very rapidly.
>
> PK> Google already provides some aspect of it...
>
> No. Google does not use RDF and OWL because they are too slow and bloated
> for their large volumes of data.
>
> PK> All collaboration and social networking web tools, Youtube,
> > rss feeds, GIS and GPS and recovery.org... etc all representation > of
> Semantic web.
>
> No. They don't use SW technology.
>
> PK> Help during Haiti earthquake was one of the fine example of
> > what Semantic web did for humanity.
>
> They used the WWW and cell phones. The SW was not involved.
>
> PDM> I think there is widespread agreement that more contributions
> > from information scientists would be advisable,
>
> I agree. But the most important first step is to drop the word 'web'
> and replace it with 'systems'.
>
> What we must do is to integrate *all* systems on a semantic basis.
> That includes every legacy system, and every future system that anybody
might
> develop using any kind of tools or platforms.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|