> I would like to point
out that your statement, "The major goal
> of Ontolog Forum is
to develop logic-based methods for representing
> and using formal
ontologies," represents only part of the ONTOLOG
Yes. I admit that it
is much too short to cover everything. My only
excuse is that I was
trying to be brief.
Peter, what exactly are the other goals of Ontolog
Forum, as you define them?
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking news: GoodRelations now fully
integrated with schema.org!
Peter, Kingsley, Doug, and Ed,
Before commenting on your comments, I'd like to remind
what is now called the Semantic Web represents just a
small subset of
the vision that Tim Berners-Lee presented in his
proposal of Feb 2000.
In that proposal, Tim explicitly addressed the issues
that Ed raises.
He didn't present a complete solution, but he
summarized the issues,
and he outlined the directions that needed further
the excerpt the end of this note.
> I would like to point out that your statement,
"The major goal
> of Ontolog Forum is to develop logic-based
methods for representing
> and using formal ontologies," represents
only part of the ONTOLOG
Yes. I admit that it is much too short to cover
everything. My only
excuse is that I was trying to be brief.
> The problem always boils down to webby data
> access, and relationship semantics that scales to
Unfortunately, I must agree with Ed B and with Tim B-L
that it is
impossible to have consistent semantics that scales to
of the WWW. Tim implied that in the excerpt
copied below, but his
recommendations for addressing the problem were
> we reached the point of critical mass a
long time ago
> Until you know the context of specific data
> you combine two supply streams at your own risk.
Yes. When you have billions of inconsistent
is not the problem. Without doing a single
inference step, we can
state with complete confidence that they imply (p
& ~p). From that
contradiction you can derive any conclusion you wish.
> Facebook has a Billion profiles and much more
from its data space alone
> And a great many utterly uninformed and
uninformative postings, to say
> nothing of baseless attacks and deliberate
frauds. The question is:
> what portion of that cacophony is signal?
And how would you know?
Tim recognized that problem. His vision of the
SW was a collection
of *heterogeneous* systems, not billions of triples
that could be
processed by a single homogeneous algorithm.
From the last paragraph below:
> The Semantic Web works by allowing each
individual system to maintain
> its own language and characteristics. The access
control system works
> with finite sets of people, groups, and
documents, and allows constrained
> expressions for access control.
In Tim's vision, the SW is a collection of *finite*
systems, each with
its own language and with its own access
controls. Different systems
may share data, but each one is responsible for
controls that limit unconstrained inferences across
billions of triples
from unconstrained sources.
Tim's full proposal is important, but the following
section is critical
for understanding what has to be done to address the issues
Unfortunately, the current SW tools ignore these
Logic of Authority
In practice -- in a distributed decentralized world --
some sources will
be more reliable (on some topics) than others and
different sources may
even assert mutually contradictory information. RDF is
based on XML for
which digital signature standards are expected to
emerge early in the
life of this project. XML Digital Signature will be
used to provide an
authentication component in this project. SWeLL
(Semantic Web Logic Language) processors will
generally be aware of the
source and authority for each piece of information.
Information will be
processed differently as a function of trust in its
It is not enough for facts to be shared between
different data systems,
or even for signed data to be shared. Several
logic-based languages have
been used with some success as knowledge interchange
SHOE, KIF, etc.). In these systems RDF-like facts are
rules that combine logical information with directives
inference. Such directives are not always exchangeable
types of KR systems, but the logical relationships
must be expressible
in SWeLL. For this, SWeLL extends RDF by including
negation and explicit
But to achieve its full potential, the Semantic Web
must do more. The
Semantic Web is composed of heterogeneous systems. No
real system can
answer every possible question about its data (i.e.
none can compute the
deductive closure of its information). Different
systems make different
compromises, affording different sets of inferences.
For this reason,
one application will often be able to reach a
particular conclusion when
another does not.
In the general case, one piece of software will need
to be able to
explain or justify to another why its assertions ought
to be accepted.
This allows an untrusted system to effectively
by compellingly justifying that information. The steps
of such a
justification amount to a logical proof of the
assertion, and the final
key element of the Semantic Web is a proof
verification system that
allows justifications and inferences to be exchanged
along with raw data.
Thus, a heuristic of one system may posit a
relationship (such as that a
person may access a web page) and succeed in finding a
justification for it. This can be conveyed to a very
system that could never have derived this relationship
justification on its own, but which can verify that
the justification is
The Semantic Web works by allowing each individual
system to maintain
its own language and characteristics. The access
control system works
with finite sets of people, groups, and documents, and
constrained expressions for access control.
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/