W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Semantic web - a fractal ongoing struggle toward greater consistency.

From: <franco.salvetti@tiscalinet.it>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:28:36 -0400
Message-ID: <184670-220037525232836519@M2W086.mail2web.com>
To: timbl@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, phayes@ihmc.us

Dear RDFers,

I have received this e-mail. I am so happy that this problems are now in
the center of our attentions. I have seens so many sintax-based details
that I am bored. Coming back to the original problem of sharing names and
hence concepts by using an ontology give us again the opportunity of asking
ourself if a semantic network (known as a mathematical object since the
beginning of the 1900) is the correct way of representing knowledge. And
moreover, if the representation will change so much the things that we can
do with them. It seems to me that there is nothing more in an RDF assertion
than in a Prolog fact or a first order logic declaration. Why are we so
excited with something that is not new and that we have used for at least
100 years. Just because we can exchange names... are we really sure that
just having a name, an URI, is sufficient for exchanging a concept between
two agents. I feel that at the end we have to rely on the fact that some
human beings decide that this collection of names is the one that we have
to use and at the end two agents will be able to communicate to each other
just because of this "static" choice of names and not because we have a
"new" technologies that allow communication among agents that do not knwo
each other. How can an agent underestand a new name unseen before? Are the
works done in the '70 about Conceptual Dependencies a possible way to
re-evaluate our problem and re-establish a possible way to define new names
on a well understood and shared set of "words"?






Sincerely,
Franco Salvetti


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Tim Berners-Lee timbl@w3.org
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:10:47 -0400
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, phayes@ihmc.us
Subject: Semantic web - a fractal ongoing struggle toward greater
consistency.



On Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003, at 12:31 US/Eastern, pat hayes wrote:
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0293.html
(in www-tag to which please do NOT crosspost)
> [...]

> My other, second, point - and this is where I was chuntering about 
> human communication and lexical ambiguity of "bank" and so on - is 
> less to do with the TAG and more of a design debate within the SWeb. 
> It is relevant, however, as I suspect that your position on this 
> matter is partly what makes you so anxious to insist on single 
> interpretations.  The question is, is our current design assumption - 
> that all URIs always have the same meaning for all agents, so that RDF 
> can be freely swapped around from ontology to ontology and processed 
> by simple inference engines without any kind of checking for 
> consonance of meaning - really realistic? You seem to think that it 
> is, that the SWeb will be able to evolve into a global system of clear 
> and unambiguous concepts, each assigned uniquely to a URI.

Actually, I expect the web to have different order at different scales. 
A fractal system has similar amounts of organization showing up in a 
similar way at different scales.  I think the semantic web will -- must 
in fact, to be useful -- evolve in this way.
I have written about it in general in
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fractal but here let me go over it from 
the semantic web point of view.

There is a process we have been discussing in which  two agents using a 
set of symbols exchange information, and in that way narrow down the 
set of interpretations they are dealing with such that the 
interpretations each agent uses are consistent with all the data 
exchanged.  Every time  a message sent by one is inconsistent with some 
interpretation the other had been considering the second agent throws 
the interpretation away.  So we end up with a concept of "means the 
same thing".

When more than two people do it, then we call it a community, or a 
movement, or whatever.
Now, this process is lengthy and expensive.  It is difficult to do and 
even more difficult to maintain. The larger the community which does it 
the longer it takes. Witness, the time it takes to get web architecture 
agreed.  This is the work of W3C so we know, we feel the pain.  
Therefore, there will be relatively few symbols where everyone in the 
world (or every bit of software in the world) means the same thing.
Candidates are rdf:type and dt:Integer.  There will be many more 
symbols where that applies to a sub-community. Things like "atomic 
number", "EAN barcode number", and so on, you can imagine being shared 
by medium-sized communities.  And some concepts, like skolem constants, 
are dreamed up locally in the course of a chat between two people, and 
never shared wider.  There can be billions and billions of those as 
they are so cheap.

So this is how it works. Each agent finds itself operating as a member 
of several communities of different sizes. It requires consistency 
within the data on which it operates.  This means it has to do a finite 
a mount of work.  It has to maintain a bunch of local symbols which are 
cheap, and just a few global symbols which are  expensive but where its 
own share of the participation will be small. And some at several 
scales in between. The operations of this agent will help consistency 
between those groups.

If every agent were in fact successful, then at close of business the 
world would indeed be a totally consistent huge system  This is of 
course is not reality.  There is no close of business.
Just as new understandings are found, and inconsistencies are cleared 
up, so new people join communities, or people try to exchange more 
forms of data between existing communities, and the agenda for the work 
increases. There will never be global consistency. But in mature areas 
(think Online Financial Exchange, Calendars (ever?! ;-), weights and 
measures, etc) the terms will be well understood, and interoperability 
tests will have established that machines use them appropriately.

What there will be lots of is the use of many different URIs to mean 
things which are either the same or very close.  This is where 
different communities name the same concept independently.  This causes 
no breakage: no inconsistencies.  It does form an opportunity for more 
standardization work in the future.

> [...]

> So, ironically, the issue about agreeing to a common meaning, that you 
> keep making an inappropriate fuss about, is actually a non-issue: our 
> current design handles it perfectly, and you don't even need to 
> mention "resources"; but I am saying that the current design is in 
> fact broken, for just this reason. It is predicated on a falsehood 
> that you wish to be made into a principle. You don't need to make it 
> into a principle; and making it into a principle isn't going to make 
> it any truer than it is, or make the knowledge integration problem go 
> away, in any case, as practical SW users will rapidly discover; in 
> some cases, are already discovering, eg see 
> http://smi-web.stanford.edu/si2003/
>

I think we are talking about different levels of "principle".
I am not saying its not going to happen.
I am saying don't do it deliberately.

The specs are protocols.  A protocol design says "if one acts the 
following way, then the following things become true". They say what 
people should and should not do, and what certain things mean.  They 
say that rdf:type is a property associated with the binary relation of 
class membership.  What do you take that as?  A fact which is true 
because the owner of the URI said so?  a fundamental Principle? a 
declaration? An assertion others are free to question? Part of a 
convention?

In the spec it i written up as though a fact.  If everyone reads and 
follows the spec, they can communicate using rdf:type.

What do you call it when someone says {rdf:type  rdf:type animals:Cat 
.} ?
(where Cat means what we expect it to mean, the animal).
A statement which may be true in certain interpretations?
An alternative and quite reasonable view of life?
 From the RDF spec's point of view, it is what spec writers would call 
an "error".

So I'm not proposing to declare that people never make errors.
But I do want to make sure that things which will stop the protocol 
working are called errors so that people are encouraged not to do them.

There are people who would like to say

<http://www.w3.org/>  a  soc:Consortium.
<http://www.w3.org/>   a doc:Work.

because they say it should be clear from the context what one means.
So, while i'm not saying declaring that such documents don't exist,
I am saying that we should say that it is an error to use same URI to 
mean two different things.

Then I would like the spec to assert that HTTP URIs (without hashes) 
denote information resources.  This allows anyone who sees the URI of 
one of those things to use that URI

<http://www.example.w3.org/> rdf:type xx:currentlyInaccessable.

<http://www.example.com/>  xx:textContents """You have reached this web 
page by typing "example.com", "example.net",   or "example.org" into 
your web browser.
These domain names are reserved for use in documentation and are not 
available    for registration. See RFC    2606 , Section 3. """.

without having to find some documentation as to whether in fact that 
URI was designed by the domain name owner to be the identifier of some 
dog.

I have had a huge push-back on this from various people for various 
quite different reasons,
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html being a summary of some of 
the arguments.

   It follows that anything with "http:" and no "#" is a information 
resource, and so that means it would be an error to use that URI for a 
rdf Property.
It is good to tell people that sort of thing, so that they don't just 
follow the spec and then come up with an inconsistency later on through 
no fault of their own.

So I don't know whether that is some wording different from "error"  
for this sort of circumstance.

> Pat
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 19:30:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT