- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:20:28 -0400
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- cc: www-tag@w3.org
> |> Assertions that http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is a web
> |> page or has a particular creator or last modified date or
> |> what-have-you are inconsistent.
> |
> | This seems to me the crux -- on what basis do you assert they are
> | inconsistent?
>
> I'm appealing to your experience. Given two assertions:
>
> http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is_a "Hoary Marmot"
> http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is_a "web page"
>
> Your undertanding of what it means to be a Hoary Marmot (in particular
> that all such things belong to each of the following classes of
> things: marmots, rodents, gnawing animals, placental mammals,
> eutherian mammals, mammals, vertibrates, craniates, chordates,
> animals, organisms, living things, animate things, and physical
> objects) will lead you to conclude that those assertions are
> inconsistent.
>
> I could have made some additional statements to express explicitly
> that the set of hoary marmots and the set of web pages are disjoint,
> but I didn't bother.
>
> | How might I have figure that out for myself?
>
> You, the human being, relies on wetware. A machine is going to rely
> on...something else. The trick is not to make assertions that you
> can't prove, I suppose.
>
> | How might
> | my search engine have figure it out for _itself_?
>
> I have no idea.
Did my earlier message [1] sketch this out well enough, or would you
like my approach documented in more detail? I don't actually have
owl:disjointWith reasoning and web-retrieval in the same code base
yet, but I could explain how they would fit together.
-- sandro
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Sep/0074.html
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 19:18:08 UTC