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

RE: Thought experiments on a proposed solution

From: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:42:53 -0400
Message-ID: <D3C8F903E7CC024C9DA6D900A60725D9025F34CD@DLTKVMX1.ads.deltek.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: <public-sw-meaning@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:34 PM
> To: John Black
> Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Thought experiments on a proposed solution
> 
> 
> >I would like to propose the following solution to this
> >issue.
> 
> What issue, exactly?

Tag issue rdfURIMeaning-39.

> Im not aware of any problem that needs 
> to be solved here.
> 
> >  We create a specification for the Semantic Web
> >Conformity Relation (SWCR), a binary relation where each
> >tuple contains one element from the set of all URIs and one
> >element from the set of all classes defined in any ontology.
> 
> Well, there's a problem right there. Most classes 
> don't have definitions, and most ontologies don't 
> define anything.
> 

Ok.  Let's replace "defined" with "mentioned".

> When are people going to get this straight?? 
> Almost all the words we use in English and almost 
> all the URIs we use in RDF/OWL *do not have* and 
> *do not need* definitions. All this trying to 
> lock down unique meanings in registries is a 
> COMPLETE FANTASY, like trying to capture a bowl 
> of mist or pin a label onto a breeze. Give UP on 
> it, for goodness sake.  Even if we were to set up 
> some such world-wide registry, after unbelievable 
> effort, it would be immediately ignored by 
> everyone, and quite correctly so, since it would 
> not provide any actual utility to anyone that 
> they can't get just by using the Web in the way 
> that people are already using it.  We would do 
> better to spend our time doing fantasy gaming: it 
> would use up about as much time and have about as 
> much connection with the actual world, but be a 
> lot more fun.
> 
> Pat Hayes

I am not proposing any such registry, so these arguments 
are as specious as they are caustic.  As I say below, 
this relation is virtual, it would have a similar status to 
"...a network-spanning information space consisting of 
resources, which are interconnected by links defined within 
that space."

I can also delete any mention of the word "meaning" from the 
proposal without harm.  It is simply a virtual association 
between two keys.

Use of this protocol would be optional, there is no suggestion 
of locking down anything or limiting anyone in any way.

I believe there would be enough utility to drive its voluntary 
use.  It is simply a summary of ways for everyone to agree on 
how to link URIs up with metadata that mentions those URIs.  
But it does so in a minimalist manner, giving it maximum 
versatility.  It would enable every user of URIs to personalize 
the metadata configuration on every web page they publish.  To 
do so lets people express themselves better.  People are driven 
to be understood. That is the utility.


> >The ontology element is specified either by the owner of the
> >URI or by default.  This binary relation may be virtual
> >and certainly will be decentralized, a federated creation
> >of the combined efforts of every one who participates in
> >the optional Semantic Web Conformity Protocol (SWCP). 
> >
> >Now some thought experiments:
> >1) How does this relation get populated?
> >An RDF tag specifying the ontology:type of the URI is:
> >1.a) embedded in the document at that location. OR
> >1.b) is in an RDF document that embeds
> >(wraps) the document found at that location, possibly with
> >new mime type. OR
> >1.c) an MGET function is called on the URI which returns a
> >document containing the tag. OR
> >1.d) some form of redirection takes place and the document
> >at that location contains the tag. OR
> >1.e) some form of content negotiation takes place and
> >locates a document containing the tag. OR
> >1.f) other solutions are possible. OR
> >1.g) all else fails, the URI defaults to type
> >ontology:http-resource, which is a class in an ontology of
> >the present hypertext web.
> >
> >2) But what if the URI contains a hash mark?
> >One of the methods listed under number 1 will have to be
> >applied to each such URI and performable from the URI with
> >the hash mark removed.
> >
> >3) What about RDDL?
> >Instead of putting the RDDL document at the endpoint of
> >the URI, there would be an ontology:namespace tag there.  The
> >actual location of the RDDL document would then be located
> >according to the location method defined by that namespace
> >class.  That definition could well say, look up the html
> >document at that URI.  But this would no longer be necessary
> >due to the level of indirection afforded by the SWCR.  If I
> >want the type of the URI to be myOntology:myNamespace, then
> >my definition may specify that the RDDL is located elsewhere.
> >
> >4) How about Sandro's 4 RDF programmers requirements? in
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep
> /0088.html
> >r1) All URIs are now logical constant terms with solid grounding
> >in the sw, including those that have not been typed.  For those
> >now constitute a large set of statements of the form "that 
> http-resource".
> >Those URIs that have been typed by the owner have as simple 
> or complex
> >a meaning as the owner wants. 
> >r2) have a human readable web page - The class of the URI can be
> >defined to point to such a page, along with an access method to it.
> >r3) a web address for RDF/XML content - Similar to r2, the class
> >of the URI can have a Property giving the location of an RDF dump
> >for any URI in that class, as well as a path to it.
> >r4) the address of a query answering service - Similar to r2,r3.
> >In general we use the power of this new technology to create classes
> >of URI that will do whatever we want.
> >
> >5) What does using an URI require of me and my software? as asked in
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep
> /0054.html
> >You must look up a URI in the SWCR and make sure that your use of the
> >URI conforms with the type as defined by the owner.  If 
> molly wants to
> >use sally:123 and abide by the optional Semantic Web 
> Conformity Protocol
> >(SWCP), then molly looks up X in SWCR(sally:123,X). 
> >Suppose X = domesticAnimals:cat, then molly can use sally:123 as a
> >domesticAnimals:cat or a domesticAnimals:mammal or as a
> >domesticAnimals:animateBeing.  But Molly will violate the 
> optional SWCP
> >if she uses sally123 as a domesticAnimals:dog. Lets say that Molly's
> >reputation according to SWCP will move lower a notch, people 
> will give
> >her a lower SWCP-trust-rating.
> >
> >6) How does this answer Tim's request in New Issue - Meaning 
> of URIs in
> >RDF documents? as presented in
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0022.html
> >6.1) It's a concise statement of a number of architectural elements.
> >By objectifying the requirements with the virtual SWCR, many goals
> >are simply stated.
> >6.2  It gives guidance on some specific questions, such as what is
> >a SWCP compliant tool required to do when using someone's URI - look
> >it's meaning in the SWCR and conform to it.
> >6.3.a  It clarifies certain points.  URIs have a single 
> meaning, that is,
> >the X in SWCR(URI,X).  It is the URI owner that puts the defining tag
> >in the SWCR. 
> >6.3.b  Consistent misuse of a URI results in a lowering of 
> the reputation
> >of the misusers - not in a change of the meaning.
> >6.3.c  The use of a URI implies conformance to the SWCR as described.
> >When in doubt you look it up in the SWCR as described above.
> >6.3.d  Setting the defining tag in under the control of 
> whoever controls
> >what is located at that URI.
> >
> >John Black
> >Senior Software Architect
> >Deltek Systems, Inc.
> >13880 Dulles Corner Lane
> >Herndon, VA 20171
> >JohnBlack@deltek.com
> >703-885-9646 - Office (Tues,Wed,Thur)
> >434-964-1936 - Home Office (Mon,Fri)
> >434-825-3765 - Mobile (Anytime)
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 18:42:54 GMT

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