- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 12:30:12 -0800
- To: epfsug@epfsug.eu, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, public-opengov@w3.org
> But it's not obvious to me that to asktheeu.org for all > 'four-column working documents' would be completely useless in > figuring out how to proceed. FWIW ... A "four-column working document" (see also [1]) would be "completely useless" because RDF Lists are not "four-column documents" by definition - if that definition includes the Open World Assumption, which of course all RDF does, representing semantic principles. The debate seems just hopelessly circular, although it is a bit more than that. The Open World Assumption can not be iterated within the scope of ethical principals in Law and Accounting. I mean by that, this: There is no reason to believe that the value of *every* contractual obligation grows over time or that petit cash in the cash register *always* grows over night. There is a Time Value of Money, but not a "(universal) Time Value of Contract" or a Time Value of Pocket Change. This problem can not be resolved by searching for the "next big thing", however, semantic principles are not at risk of being "useless" because you know how to combine the "old big things" you have laying around ... And you know already how to scale down (eliminate the "added value" of the Open World Assumption) ... Einstein was a pretty clever guy (E=m*c^2) ... the speed of light has no fine structure (i.e. "added value") nor does the ratio ((Population Variance)/Mean)[2,3]. --Gannon [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Received on Saturday, 8 November 2014 20:30:40 UTC