- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:03:23 +0200
- To: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "John Sowa F." <sowa@bestweb.net>, "Ayers Danny" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "tim.glover@bt.com>" <tim.glover@bt.com>
On 7 Apr 2006, at 01:31, adasal wrote: > Henry, > Thank you for the useful reply. > But I don't think this deals with the issues of mediation between > two similar but semantically disjoint ontologies. Show me one, and I'll look at how we can link them (if it does not take too long) > You have said that how a mapping of one into another is done is > important, but how might it be done? I imagine this would be a role > for the establishment of more abstract principals, presumably the > field of UFOs? No. It could at minimum be done with Lifting Rules. See my "Keeping track of Context in Life and on the Web" [1] [I said:] > > There are an infinite number of relations between things. You can > > define the relations you wish. But if they are not useful they will > > just be laying around unused. > There are an infinite number of relationships between things. > This is why I think one notion of the semweb is futile and > misguided, that vision of uniting huge tranches of the current > documents on the web in some ubber tagged universe. > One may home in on some area and describe and re-describe it to any > level of detail and for many different purposes. That notion is one that we keep telling you is not part of the Semantic Web. It is *your* vision of the Semantic Web. You have a straw man argument. You imagine we are doing something we are not doing. Then you prove that what you imagine we are doing is impossible. And you wrongly conclude that what we are doing is impossible. Please distiguish between what you think we are doing and what we are doing. Henry > Adam [1] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bblfish/20060404 [2] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/101
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 08:03:43 UTC