[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Lightweight, middleweight, and heavyweight semantics

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:40:20 -0400
Message-id: <4C2E3294.4070305@xxxxxxxxxxx>
David and Pavithra,    (01)

DE> I'm having a hard time getting my noodle around "Data with no
> explicit semantics of any kind."
> If there's no semantics, WHY has it been collected?  (Thinking in
> terms of enterprise systems such as accounting, securities trading,
> HR, etc.)  Surely it must MEAN something to someone?    (02)

By 'explicit' I meant "outside the noodle of the person who wrote it."
For example, a CSV file might contain something like    (03)

    546053, 546067, 546071, 546097, 546101, 546103    (04)

A mathematician or a clever program might guess that those numbers
form a sequence of consecutive primes.  But most programs can't.    (05)

All the documents on the WWW were generated by somebody for some
purpose.  Most of them have no semantic tags of any kind, but
usually some human other than the author can decipher them and
guess what they mean.  Some sophisticated programs might also
be able to guess.  But semantic tags would be helpful.    (06)

For the lightweight category, I include things like RDF and
RDFa, which may include pointers to documents that may say
something about the data, but those documents could also be
written in a form that most programs cannot decipher.    (07)

PK> Are you suggesting a semantic maturity model?
>It would be nice to develop a maturity assess level of semantics
> in applications and web services that use Ontologies.    (08)

The term 'maturity' might not be appropriate for these levels.    (09)

Heavyweight semantics is more detailed and expressive than
lightweight semantics, but it's unlikely that most data linked
by LOD methods would ever be defined by formal semantics.    (010)

On the other hand, one could imagine CSV data (level 0)
that would become more mature with semantic tags (level 1).
But most NL texts can't be defined at level 3 (although
they might be processed by tools such as Cyc that use
level 3 semantics).    (011)

In any case, just a rough grouping at these very broad levels
would be useful for distinguishing the semantic requirements
for various kinds of applications.    (012)

John    (013)

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    (014)

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