W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2004

RE: URIQA thwarted by context problems?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:28:25 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD21@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <adrianw@snet.net>, <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Adrian Walker [mailto:adrianw@snet.net]
> Sent: 10 October, 2004 05:42
> To: Phil Dawes
> Cc: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: URIQA thwarted by context problems?
> Phil -
> A possible initial step towards automating the use of context 
> is as follows.
> Be able to reason in executable English about rdf triples.
> The "Semantic Web Presentation" at our site**  talks about 
> adding such a 
> layer of meaning.
> The examples called RDFQueryLangComparison1 and 
> SemanticWebOntology1 at the 
> same site suggest how to actually do it.
> Do you think that may that help?

Exactly. Express the contextual qualifications of terms, vocabularies,
assertions, graphs, whatever in RDF, and URIQA will happily provide
such knowledge to any arbitrary agent that asks.

Agents which are able to understand and apply those contextual qualifications
will derive more utility from knowledge employing those terms, vocabularies,
assertions, etc.

Yes, there will be instances of noise, misunderstanding, contradiction,
etc. That will be par for the course on the semantic web. Cest la vie.

And note also, that CBDs support all valid RDF forms for expressing 
contextual qualifications, including reification (a particular
point for those who may think a standardized default form of
description need not care about reifications, because they don't 
personally care for them or use them...)



>                                  Cheers,  -- Adrian
>       ** www.reengineeringllc.com
> At 05:59 PM 10/8/2004 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hi Patrick,
> >
> >I'm afraid that the more work I do with rdf, the more I'm having
> >problems seeing URIQA working as a mechanism for bootstrapping the
> >semantic web.
> >
> >The main problem I think is that when discovering new information,
> >people are always required to sort out context (a point made by Uche
> >Ogbuji on the rdf-interest list recently).
> >
> >When identifying new terms, some mechanism has to exist to decide
> >whether the author's definition of the term fits with its use in the
> >instance data, and that that tallies with the context in which the
> >system is attempting to use the data. To my mind this prohibits a
> >system 'discovering' a new term without a human vetoing and managing
> >its use.
> >
> >Of course this doesn't prohibit the decentralisation of such
> >context-management work - e.g. a third party could recommend a
> >particular ontological mapping of terms based on an agreed context. I
> >just don't see machines being able to do this work on an ad-hoc basis
> >any time soon.
> >
> >You've been doing a lot of work on trust/context etc.. in addition to
> >URIQA, so I'd be interested to hear your views on this.
> >
> >Many thanks,
> >
> >Phil
Received on Sunday, 10 October 2004 07:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC