- From: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:17:17 +0100
- To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Perhaps what we need to start worrying about is getting some test cases -- or a big pile of real (shonky) data to extract useful facts from... Would it be worth starting a collection of data which makes sense to humans but isn't strictly semanticly clear? William Waites wrote: > * [2011-06-12 22:52:18 -0700] Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> écrit: > > ] OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you > ] are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. > ] Want to try running it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not > ] accept your claim that a description of something is in any useful > ] sense isomorphic to the thing it describes. As in, some RDF describing, > ] say, the Eiffel tower is not in any way isomorphic to the actual > ] tower. (I also do not understand why you think this claim matters, > ] by the way.) > > So in the previous email, Danny used the important word - relevant. > Let's unpack that a little bit. Suppose we have no range-14 and all > these RDF statements out there are all mixed up about what they refer > to. Well, not completely mixed up. They're kind of clumped together, > web pages and the things they are about tend to get confused but > probably the chain of inferences that lead you to believe that the > Eiffel tower is a dog is pretty unlikely. > > So there is some relationship between a description of the Eiffel > tower and the tower itself. The relationship is akin to similarity in > a very specific way - they are similar enough that someone thought it > made sense to write down that the tower was 356m tall. Unfortunately > they got confused and wrote down that the web page was 356m tall. No > matter, they are still different enough in the relevant ways that > anyone interested in heights on the order of hundreds of meters is > unlikely to be confused. > > Same with the dog. Is the distinction between the dog and the picture > important to me? Maybe, maybe not. It depends what I'm trying to do. > If I want to make sure that I can recognise the doc when I meet her, > a picture or the actual dog might do equally well. > > So that's the thing, similar or different in the relevant respects for > the purpose at hand. The purpose at hand is necessary to figure out > relevance. Just deriving all the possible things that can be entailed > from the information you have is no good. You have to derive the > relevant things in a particular context. You have to throw out givens > that are irrelevant to you or that lead you to irrelevant or > nonsensical entailments. > > In the general case this is hard. It's not even clear if it is > relevance understood like this is computable. The intent of the user > is so clearly in the loop providing a reference frame for evaluating > relevance and capturing and representing a user's intent is not > something we have a good way of doing apart from hand-crafting > interactions. > > Is it doable in simple cases (with rules programmed by humans) like > figuring out the foaf:knows graph where people and their homepages > can just be merged without too many bad side-effects. > > We need a different kind of rule here - a cut rule. That says if > some condition obtains, *remove* some statements. For example, > remove all { ?doc a foaf:Document } before running the productive > rules might be a common one where we know that we aren't interested > in information resources. > > Cheers, > -w > > -- Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248 You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
Received on Monday, 13 June 2011 21:37:50 UTC