John, (01)
If nothing else (and I think the Semantic Web has done much more),
ontologies/semantics are more thriving today than they were 10 years ago. At
least millions of people now think they know something about semantics. Most of
which is wrong, of course, comparable to every other important topic. At least
parity has been achieved. (02)
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the XML syntax, nor in the fact that there is
a corresponding description logic associated with OWL 1 or 2, nor that any
description logic is not the FOL we love. (03)
The good still far outweighs the bad. And the side-effect over time is that
folks do learn issues about formal languages, semantics, ontologies, bad and
better modeling, standards, and at least rudimentary inklings about why their
initial thoughts about these topics weren't wide or deep enough, and hence some
commitment to change and to learn more. Witness the Ontolog Forum. (04)
Thanks,
Leo (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:26 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Need advice - Request a quick opinion on ontology
languages (06)
On 5/25/2011 1:17 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Yes, assuming (as I do) you see Linked Data Graphs and RDF as being
> distinct:-)
>
> Now in the case of Watson though, the Linked Datasets were in RDF form
> (a Semantic Web Project output) prior to ingestion, as part of Watson
> learning process etc.. (07)
That is just a difference in terminology. Guha had been the associate
director at Cyc, where represented triples in Lisp: (A B C). (08)
Later, he was working at Apple, where he used triples for a notation
he called Metacontent Facility (MCF). Then he worked with Tim Bray,
who defined an XML notation for MCF. Later they changed the name
to RDF to avoid the association with Apple. (09)
But now, the W3C uses the term RDFa for a notation where the triple
is implicit, and it doesn't even look like a triple until you extract
it from the context. (010)
In any case, the amount of semantics in a triple is so small that
it's misleading to say that Watson depended on or benefited from
SW technology in any significant way. (011)
You could just as easily blame SW technology for leading Watson
into the blunder about Toronto being a US city. I would prefer
to attribute both the credit and the blame to the Watson design,
not to the sources it used. (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 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|