ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking news: GoodRelations now fully integrat

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:36:09 -0800
Message-id: <45529A6244B54AD99BFA1A5740E885CA@Gateway>

Dear Peter,

 

You wrote:

PY

> 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

> mission...

 

JFS wrote:

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

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:14 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 everyone that

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 development.  See

the excerpt the end of this note.

 

PY

> 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

> mission...

 

Yes.  I admit that it is much too short to cover everything.  My only

excuse is that I was trying to be brief.

 

KI

> The problem always boils down to webby data object representation,

> access, and relationship semantics that scales to the Web.

 

Unfortunately, I must agree with Ed B and with Tim B-L that it is

impossible to have consistent semantics that scales to the size

of the WWW.  Tim implied that in the excerpt copied below, but his

recommendations for addressing the problem were ignored.

 

KI

> we reached the point of critical mass  a long time ago

 

DF

> Until you know the context of specific data ("electricity") supply,

> you combine two supply streams at your own risk.

 

Yes.  When you have billions of inconsistent triples, efficiency

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.

 

KI

> Facebook has a Billion profiles and much more from its data space alone

 

EB

> 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 maintaining access

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 Ed raised.

Unfortunately, the current SW tools ignore these issues completely.

 

John

______________________________________________________________________

 

Source: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/DevelopmentProposal

 

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 source.

 

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 languages (e.g.

SHOE, KIF, etc.). In these systems RDF-like facts are augmented with

rules that combine logical information with directives for effecting

inference. Such directives are not always exchangeable between different

types of KR systems, but the logical relationships must be expressible

in SWeLL. For this, SWeLL extends RDF by including negation and explicit

quantification.

 

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 communicate information,

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 logical

justification for it. This can be conveyed to a very rigid security

system that could never have derived this relationship or its

justification on its own, but which can verify that the justification is

sound.

 

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.

 

_________________________________________________________________

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

 


_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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