- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:05:28 -0500
- To: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- CC: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11/12/10 1:31 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Kingsley, > > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 10:12 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 11/12/10 8:40 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: >>> Kingsley, >>> >>> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 07:58 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>> On 11/12/10 5:59 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> >>>> Patrick / Dave, >>>> >>>> I am hoping as the responses come in we might pick up something. There >>>> is certainly some confusion out there. >>>> >>>> Note my comments yesterday re. URIs and Referents. I believe this >>>> association to be 1:1, but others may not necessarily see it so. >>>> >>> Isn't it that "...others may not necessarily see it so." that lies at >>> the heart of semantic ambiguity? >> Yes! >> >> We are perpetuating ambiguity by conflating realms, ultimately. The Web >> of URLs != Web of URIs. They are mutually inclusive (symbiotic). >> > Err, no, we are not "perpetuating ambiguity." Ambiguity isn't a choice, > it is an operating condition. I believe that conflating realms increases ambiguity, maybe that's a little clearer? >>> Semantic ambiguity isn't going to go away. It is part and parcel of the >>> very act of communication. >> This is why Context is King. >> >> You can use Context to reduce ambiguity. >> >> A good Comedian is a great Context flipper, for instance. >> >> Ambiguity exists in the real-world too, we use Context to disambiguate >> every second of our lives. >> > Eh? True enough but context in the "real-world" (do computers exist in a > make believe world?) is as unbounded as the subjects we talk about. In our world there are computers, and from computers we have a sense of "cypberspace", the Web, the Internet, even InterWeb, for instance. > It is the journal I am reading that is part of the "context" I am using > for a particular article or is it the author or is it the subject matter > or is it the sentence just before the one I am reading? You make context out of that otherwise it would all be incomprehensible. I can't fashion or construct your "context halo", I do sense its existence though :-) > All of those, at times some of those and at still other times, other > things will inform my context. > But you will use a specific context for data comprehension otherwise there would be no information (context driven perception of data). >>> It is true that is very limited circumstances with very few semantics, >>> such as TCP/IP, that is it possible to establish reliable communications >>> across multiple recipients. (Or it might be more correct to say >>> semantics of concern to such a small community that agreement is >>> possible. I will have to pull Stevens off the shelf to see.) >>> >>> As the amount of semantics increases (or the size of the community), so >>> does the potential for and therefore the amount of semantic ambiguity. >>> (I am sure someone has published that as some ratio but I don't recall >>> the reference.) >> So if a community believes in self-describing data, where the data is >> the conveyor of context, why shouldn't it be able express such believes >> in its own best practice options? Great point! A community that subscribes to self-describing data, so dog-food self-describing data. Yes!! >> Basically, we can solve ambiguity in >> the context of Linked Data oriented applications. Of course, that >> doesn't apply to applications that don't grok Linked Data or buy into >> the semantic fidelity expressed by the content of a structured data >> bearing (carrying) resource e.g. one based on EAV model + HTTP URI based >> Names. >> > Not to be offensive but are you familiar with "begging the question?" > > You are assuming that "...we can solve ambiguity in the context of > Linked Data oriented applications."* A Linked Data application is capable of perceiving an E-A-V graph representation of data. That's context it can establish from content. > That is the *issue* at hand and cannot be assumed to be true, lest we > all run afoul of "begging the question" issues. > > Hope you are having a great day! Yes :-) > Patrick > > *Your "Linked Data Application* may supply context but that *is not* > interchangeable with other "Linked Data Applications." > > Nor does it reduce ambiguity. Again EAV or SPO based data should be unambiguous to any Linked Data aware application. > Why? > > For the same reason in both cases, there is no basis on which context > can be associated with identification. Remember, the URI is the > identifier. (full stop) See comment above. > Fix it so that URI plus *specified* properties in RDF graph identify a > subject, then you have a chance to reduce (not eliminate) ambiguity. Not > as a matter of personal whimsy but as part of a standard that everyone > follows. Again, you've just described the essence of the matter re. what is current tagged Ian's solution. Links: 1. http://goo.gl/6ozSv -- URI Debugger view of the Document at: http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris (crystal clear to a user agents across various levels of semantic-fidelity and metadata sources e.g. HTTP response headers) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 21:06:00 UTC