W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Issue-57

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:39:30 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTik-ZpA09rVycJ8fg+8i72pQ_ZEKug@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 04:25 +0100, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:39 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> [ skipping some points that are not worth debating ]
>> > But AFAICT, that disjointness assertion is *not*
>> > expressed in the formal FOAF ontology.  So I do not think it is fair to
>> > claim that *Richard's* data is contradictory or does not support
>> > inference just because it fails to assume an additional assertion that
>> > the FOAF ontology did *not* make, but *you* think it should have made or
>> > meant to make.
>>
>> You are like the billionaire who, on being called out for not paying
>> taxes, says that no laws were broken because every tax loophole was a
>> legitimate loophole. Yet they have violated the social contract
>> nonetheless. And the reaction is not to say, "no, the social contract
>> is not to pay your share, it is to listen to exactly what the lawyers
>> say".  The reaction is to close the loopholes.
>
> Great rhetoric!  But there's a key difference: semantic web technology
> is about enabling *machine* processing -- not human -- and machines
> cannot be expected to understand intent.

No question about that. But the machines are our servants. I expect
*you* to recognize intent and not suggest that it be subverted. You
keep on insisting that bugs are features because of this.

>> > There are two reasons why I do not think that such informal comments
>> > should be used in assessing whether a dataset is formally consistent.
>> >
>> > 1. They cannot be machine processed, and thus any requirement that they
>> > be considered would not scale well.
>> >
>> > 2. Different users will interpret them differently, and this would lead
>> > to confusion and interoperability problems.
>>
>> They aren't being used to assess whether the dataset is formally
>> consistent. They are being used to assess whether the dataset is
>> consistent. We try to make the former match the latter, not say the
>> latter is irrelevant.
>
> But as I've pointed out, whether the dataset is consistent with the real
> world is *irrelevant* if it is useful to applications.  See myth #4:
> http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#myth4
>
> [ . . . ]
>> You continue to insist that the axioms trump the intent.
>
> Correct!  For machine processing, the axioms trump the intent!  Yes!  We
> have communicated successfully!

No, I don't think so.  The axioms determine what the reasoners do, not
the intent, but the design goal is to achieve the intent. When the
reasoners don't do as intended we consider it a bug, and we fix the
axioms.

>> It's as if
>> you were having a conversation but insisting on not understanding what
>> anybody says because you happen to only have an abridged dictionary on
>> hand.
>
> No, it's as if my *machine* were having a conversation but only happens
> to understand an abridged dictionary.  Semantic web technology is to
> enable *machine* processing.

Do you think I am missing that. But is the machine processing supposed
to achieve something? Are the answers it gets ever wrong? You are
elevation the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. Your
"mythbusting" reads as instruction to me instead of teaching about
reasoners.

-Alan



>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 06:39:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:35 GMT