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

Re: URIQA thwarted by context problems?

From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:56:37 +0000
Message-ID: <16746.15541.60643.733879@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Giovanni,

Giovanni Tummarello writes:
 > Hi Phil, i take the liberty of replying since we've actually studied CBD 
 > like structures (the RDFN in www.dbin.org semantic web p2p) and they are 
 > in fact what makes the whole thing in a sense provingly scalable.
 > The point Ogbouji was making was what basically all agree upon, tryng to 
 > do real semantic matching automatically is a lost cause. So .. when one 
 > asks for a CBD discovers "new information" it refers to "new annottions 
 > made using existing, shared ontologies". If the ontologies are unknown 
 > then.. i guess a savy agent will ignore those or ignore the source 
 > alltogether.

That sounds reasonable to me. I was specificially concerned about the
expectation that semweb agents would be able 'lookup' new terms,
rather than just discovering new instance data using well understood
and deployed ontologies/schemas. (I probably didn't make that clear).

 > So, given that there is no intention nor need for uriqua to have to 
 > solve the millenium old problem of AI, I believe the term bootstrapping 
 > is at least in a sense correct and that is what we argue at the 
 > beginning of the paper in the homepage at our site, CBDlike have a very 
 > limited computational cost and can be considered as the "standard 
 > question to ask" the "standard questions that anyone is willing to 
 > answer" (becouse you cant really say "i am open for arbitrary queries" 
 > without opening your computer to easy denial of services).

Sounds interesting - I'll download and read your paper tonight.

Many thanks,

Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 09:40:29 UTC

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