W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Showing the Semantic Web

From: William Wu <williamcwu@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:48:30 -0800
Message-ID: <43FE2DAE.2010506@sbcglobal.net>
To: ben syverson <w3@likn.org>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org

ben syverson wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> Now -- on the notion of absolute truth?  No, not at all.  No one says
>> msg2231 is true just because it's on the web.  If the full URI is
>> http://example.com/msg2231 then some people might say that Example
>> Corporation is claiming msg2231, but I don't think they'd even win that
>> argument.  The entities that can speak on the web -- that can be said to
>> claim something -- are web pages.
> The problem comes with the assertions within 
> http://example.com/msg2231. If msg2231 asserts:
> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://example.org/person">
>     <rdfs:subClassOf 
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource" />
> </rdfs:Class>
> The reasoner has no choice but to believe that statement, unless it 
> runs up against an ontological constraint, right? That's what I mean 
> by absolute truth. If you give a reasoner a set of assertions, it must 
> assume them to be true unless it conflicts with the related ontology. 
> On the web, this is a ridiculous assumption. It makes every reasoner 
> gullible.
> It would be better if every single assertion was implicitly reified by 
> its containing URI, with the *option* of attaching even more metadata 
> to the statement-about-a-statement (ie, which individual or entity in 
> particular is making these assertions, when they were made, etc). Then 
> the reasoner would be able to parse many identical assertions, and 
> rate their validity based on any number of factors. For instance,  you 
> could ask such a reasoner (although probably not in English): "do 
> French people believe that Jerry Lewis is funny?" Even with no such 
> attributes attached to a statement, the results of any query you make 
> could be qualified based on their popularity.
> Or maybe I'm way off... Anyone?
> - ben syverson
> likn
If the TBox and ABox are strictly separated for the reasoner, and only 
TBox is accepted as absolute truth, will the problem be solved?

William Wu
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 05:28:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:50 UTC