- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:39:49 +0100
- To: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@ingr.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com] > > But if you have to tolerate ambiguity, the axiom > is nothing more than a best practice and the > reliability of the system just dropped a notch. That's right. I don't believe this axiom is tolerable for the scale the Semantic Web wants to work on, any more than backlinks were tolerable for the current Web, and it will need to be softened or qualified. I know Joshua Allen and Tim BL (at least!) aren't going to appreciate that belief, but I don't see any way past it, short of calling everyone who breaks it an idiot, or radically reducing what we'll be able to say, or insisting that everyone is really talking about the same thing when they use a URI, no matter what they were saying, which is what I understand Jonathan Borden was saying in another post (personally I find that very bizarre, but since very little Jonathan says is bizarre, it I probably just didn’t get it). On the other hand if we accept a priori ambiguity, we can get on with the job of vastly reducing it... > > What is wrong with a two level system? Nothing, except I imagine the levels will not be levels as in a semantic web layer cake but more quality of information levels. regards, Bill de hÓra .. Propylon www.propylon.com
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 12:41:25 UTC