RE: No Standard Semantic Web Pragmatics?

> From: Adrian Walker
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:08 PM
> 
> John --
> 
> It's good to see someone stating the problems -- the first 
> step to a solution!
> 
> A few of your stated problems concerning intended 
> interpretations and URIs 
> are addressed in the "Semantic Web Presentation" at 
> www.reengineeringllc.com .
> 
> In case your are now thinking, "Oh great, Yet Another 
> Powerpoint", there's 
> an online system in which you can run all the examples in the 
> presentation, 
> using a browser.  You can also use a browser to write and run 
> your own 
> examples.
> 
> HTH,  -- Adrian
> 

But you don't seem to be working towards a STANDARD solution. 
There have been many proprietary knowledge representation and 
agent communication language systems developed over the years. 
Some of them are arguably more powerful or sophisticated than 
RDF or OWL. Yet none of them can talk to the rest. I prefer to 
support the ones being developed by the w3c because they are 
based on public, open standards. There is at least a chance 
that all agents based on these standards will be able to 
communicate with each other.

John

> 
> 
>                                             INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
> 
>                                               www.reengineeringllc.com
> 
> Dr. Adrian Walker
> Reengineering LLC
> PO Box 1412
> Bristol
> CT 06011-1412 USA
> 
> Phone: USA 860 583 9677
> Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
> Fax:    USA  860 314 1029
> 
> 
> At 06:17 PM 6/10/04 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> >So here is what it looks like to me.
> >
> >A general purpose communication system, where:
> >
> >There is no standard way to tell who is making statements.
> >
> >There is no standard way to tell whether whoever is doing it is
> >asserting, denying, quoting, or just experimenting with those
> >statements.
> >
> >Its a new, artificial language but there is no standard way for
> >fixing or learning the intended interpretation of its terms, URIrefs.
> >
> >URIrefs, most of which look just like URLs, are to be treated as
> >strings bearing no standard relation to the URLs they look
> >like, or to anything that might be done with them on the web.
> >
> >You can reason over it, but everything stated is considered true,
> >and there is no standard way for anything to be unsaid.
> >
> >And the people that would need to be involved to develop some
> >plain old-fashioned standard language pragmatics[1,2] are either
> >firmly against it or are too busy out writing code with it to
> >bother.
> >
> >Do I understand this correctly?
> >
> >
> >[1] The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction
> >http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/semprag.html
> >[2] Pragmatics of the Semantic Web
> >http://semanticweb2002.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/proceedings/Posi
tion/kim.pdf
>
>
>John Black

Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 21:54:07 UTC