W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > November 2003

Re: The RDF Approach to Indicating Language-In-Use

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:53:40 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031106124020.026f1d30@127.0.0.1>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

At 14:37 29/10/03 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > I would instead label Bijan's approach as the ``Do what you can'' approach.
> > Applications that only understand RDF would process documents that looked
> > like RDF as RDF.  Applications that can understand OWL (DL) would process
> > documents that look like OWL (DL) as OWL.  More sophisticated applications
> > could use whatever information is available to make the determination,
> > including any standards that emerge.  This appears to scale very well.
>
>How does it handle the case of evil-OWL?  Or someone using dc:author
>as a synonym for rdf:type?  Maybe those aren't very real, but how
>about this: There's been a lot of confusion over whether the range of
>dc:author is/should be Author (a person) or AuthorsName (a Literal
>string).  If the powers-that-be in Dublin Core came down on one side
>or the other of this issue, what levers would they be able to use in
>moving the world to their chosen approach?
>
>Let's assume for simplicity that this is for a new version of the
>vocabulary, with a new namespace.
>
>Some options:
>
>    1.  Documentation on their website, not at the namespace address
>    2.  Documentation on their website, at the namespace address
>    3.  OWL on their website, not at the namespace address
>    4.  OWL on their website, at the namespace address
>    5.  Advertising, including ads in appropriate trade magazines, and
>        encouraging word-of-mouth
>    6.  Search for invalid instance data and talk to the authors
>    7.  Target the tool makers, making sure they consider the
>        wrong approach in error (essentially hard coding the ontology)
>    8.  Target the laws and contracts around the world which currently
>        specify use of Dublin Core; make sure they refer to #1/#2
>    9.  Target the laws and contracts around the world which currently
>        specify use of Dublin Core; make sure they refer to #3/#4
>
>Which of those seem good to you?   What else could they do?

The recent furore over some (large and powerful) company intercepting (some 
might say hijacking) unassigned DNS names might be illustrative here.  In 
this case, they were eventually pressured by ICANN to take down their 
service that was supplying (arguably) bogus DNS information, because it was 
perceived as eroding the integrity of Internet architecture.  The debate 
continues.

[cf. http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2003-5/0919f.html#item7
      http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2003-5/1020m.html#item4
      http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2003-5/1022w.html#item15]

Which seems like your point 6.

I don't believe there can ever be an entirely technical solution to this 
potential problem of evil-OWL.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 09:12:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT