Actually, John, the SW is a composite of pioneers and visionaries. Many of the
SW still have that TBL vision and many go beyond that TBL vision. I would not
try to localize or personalize too much into one person's very early and
idiosyncratic view. Something like the SW is not so much Keplerian, Copernican,
Newtonian, or Einsteinian. (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:14 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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|