W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and LinkedData

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:34:29 -0400
Message-Id: <35E48C27-5627-4F04-82DD-D81C7F48E5D8@acm.org>
Cc: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>

Azamat--

The following is the original quotation, including the preceding  
sentence which provides some of the "context" I mentioned:

> The point is rather to
> avoid an argument in the other direction, an argument that I suspect
> may never have even occurred to you (it hadnt to me until I got
> involved in this debate), along the following lines:
>
> "Formal meaning is just a mathematical curiosity and has nothing to
> do with Real Meanings (the kind that really Matter in Human Discourse
> in Society, or whatever), so whenever any formal inferences are done,
> the formal conclusions lose all their Real Meaning and are just
> mathematical curiosities of no real significance, devoid of any Real
> Meaning content outside some narrow abstract mathematical domain."

Do you seriously claim that that preceding sentence, saying as it  
does that the quoted material is an argument to *avoid*, isn't  
relevant to the proper understanding of what was said?  As far as  
your comment on the Semantic Web, of course there have to be "Real  
Meanings".  As John Sowa points out (and as Pat notes in his original  
message), they have to be mapped to the formal structures, just as  
they do in any other kind of formal reasoning.

--Frank

On Jul 21, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Azamat wrote:

> Rarely have i seen such obtusness. Pat has said many interesting  
> things, but this statement reflects the whole point of the Semantic  
> Web. No Real Meanings, no Semantic Web, or  no  Universal Ontology,  
> no Intelligent Web. That's it.
> Azamat
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
> Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog- 
> forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 10:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and  
> LinkedData
>
>
>> Rarely have I seen a better example of the dangers of quoting out  
>> of context.
>>
>> --Frank
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Azamat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Formal meaning is just a mathematical curiosity and has nothing to
>>> do with Real Meanings (the kind that really Matter in Human  
>>> Discourse
>>> in Society, or whatever), so whenever any formal inferences are  
>>> done,
>>> the formal conclusions lose all their Real Meaning and are just
>>> mathematical curiosities of no real significance, devoid of any Real
>>> Meaning content outside some narrow abstract mathematical   
>>> domain."-----  Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hayes"   
>>> <phayes@ihmc.us>
>>> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>>> Cc: <chris@bizer.de>; <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>;  
>>> <semantic- web@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and  
>>> LinkedData
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture  
>>>>> and LinkedData
>>>>> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:55:54 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>  I believe, however, that what we're discussing here is not  
>>>>>> just  any old
>>>>>>  RDF statment.  If I had made a statement that "the sky is   
>>>>>> green", Tim
>>>>>>  might reasonable express the opinion "no, I think Noah has  
>>>>>> set  out a false
>>>>>>  statement."  The case we're discussing is different, I  
>>>>>> think.   Tim is, I
>>>>>>  believe, responsible for the association between the URI
>>>>>>  http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i and a resource,  
>>>>>> or  we may
>>>>>>  assume for the sake of argument that W3C has delegated that  
>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>  to him.  Tim states that the resource so designated is  
>>>>>> himself,  then he is
>>>>>>  not offering an opinion: he is stating a fact about the   
>>>>>> resource that he
>>>>>>  has chosen to identify with this URI.  The dbpedia folks may  
>>>>>> similarly
>>>>>>  establish authoritative associations between the URIs they   
>>>>>> control and
>>>>>>  resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Noah
>>>>>
>>>>> But what observable consequences come from this within a   
>>>>> computational
>>>>> system?
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly statements like "the sky is green"
>>>>>
>>>>> ex:sky ex:colour ex:green .
>>>>>
>>>>> have consequences.  For example, if added to functionality of  
>>>>> the colour
>>>>> propery and uniqueness of colour objects, it is inconsistent  
>>>>> with  the
>>>>> sky being blue.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, what consequences can come from the association  
>>>>> between  a URI
>>>>> and a (non-information) resource?  I can't think of any, and  
>>>>> if  there
>>>>> aren't any then what is the point of arguing about the status  
>>>>> of  such
>>>>> associations?
>>>>
>>>> I can think of many of them. Of course, they may not be  
>>>> *logical* consequences. See
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/  
>>>> 0196.html
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>> -- 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>> --
>>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416   office
>>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440   fax
>>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667    cell
>>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2007 20:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC