W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2008

Re: objects to facts to links to LOD to ???

From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:37:22 -0500
Message-ID: <f914914c0812161437sac8230cvc222d38595168@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Knud Hinnerk Mller" <knud.moeller@deri.org>
Cc: (wrong string) रविंदर ठाकुर (ravinder thakur)\"" <ravinderthakur@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
IMO, the (object->fact->links) is what RDF/RDFS/OWL does. So that
complements those layers of the cake.

The objective of the cake (the semantic web) is to allow serendipity and
discovery. So I retract and what I said before. Discovery cannot be a layer;
it should be Inference. The fifth layer is trust. The whole cake will allow
discovery and serendipity

Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
Dept. of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
www.juansequeda.com
www.semanticwebaustin.org


On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Knud Hinnerk Mller
<knud.moeller@deri.org>wrote:

>
> On 16.12.2008, at 17:27, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>  Knud et al,
>>
>> I think Ravinder has started the process of fixing the current Semantic
>> Web layer cake :-) Which is a very good thing (imho, but not seeking a Layer
>> Cake discussion explosion).
>>
>
> I'd rather say his proposal (objects->facts->links->...) is complementary
> to the current SW layer cake. It shows what is going on conceptually,
> whereas the current SW cake (which I agree probably needs to be fixed) is
> more of a technology stack. An interesting paper I read related to this is:
>
> A. Gerber, A. van der Merwe, and A. Barnard. A functional Semantic Web
> architecture. In Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference
> (ESWC2008), Tenerife, Spain, pages 273287. Springer, June 2008.
>
>  The tricky part is the interchangeable nature of "Discovery" and "Trust"
>> in any such scheme layer-wise. For instance, do "Discovery" and "Trust"
>> occupy Layers 4, 5 or either ? We ultimately want to reason against trusted
>> data sources, but the serendipity quotient of discovery is a key factor re.
>> the dynamic nature of "trusted sources".
>>
>> Since I am clearly thinking and writing (aloud) at the same time, I would
>> suggest:
>>
>> Layer 4 - Discovery (with high Serendipity Quotient)
>> Layer 5 - Trust (albeit inherently volatile)
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>>>
>>>
> I'm not sure discovery and trust belong in this stack at all. Not that I
> don't think they are extremely important, but what I see in Ravinder's stack
> is a description of the nature of data on the SW. Of course, what I see
> might not be what he intended! :) The next layer should describe how the
> data is different from the previous layers. As I pointed out in a previous
> mail, I think this difference could be in inferenced data vs. explicit data.
>
> Cheers,
> Knud
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Knud Mller, MA
> +353 - 91 - 495086
> Smile Group: http://smile.deri.ie
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>  National University of Ireland, Galway
> Institiid Taighde na Fiontraochta Digit
>  Ollscoil na hireann, Gaillimh
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 22:38:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:26 GMT