RE: When does a document acquire (web) semantics?

Similarly the Semantic Web is unbounded: anyone can say anything about
anything and create different types of links between resources.
(Berners Lee)

-----Original Message-----
From: andrea splendiani (RRes-Roth)
[mailto:andrea.splendiani@bbsrc.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Solbrig, Harold R.; John Madden; w3c semweb HCLS
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji
Subject: RE: When does a document acquire (web) semantics?

Sorry, what's the AAA principle ?
It seems to me ignoring is not a problem. In case, thinking that you
don't ignore anything is against the SemWeb framework.

Ciao,
Andrea


-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Solbrig,
Harold R.
Sent: 02 February 2010 15:18
To: John Madden; w3c semweb HCLS
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji
Subject: RE: When does a document acquire (web) semantics?

The AAA principle that forms one of the underlying pillars of much of
the semantic web work does not necessarily work in science and medicine.
While I don't object to the ability of anyone to say whatever they want
whenever they want, I reserve (and demand) the right to ignore it
completely.  This ability needs to be built in at the core of anything
we do if it is to have value. E-mail, as it exists today, is a stark
example of what happens if you ignore the "AIA" (Anyone can Ignore
Anything) principle...  

-----Original Message-----
From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Madden
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:04 AM
To: w3c semweb HCLS
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji
Subject: Re: When does a document acquire (web) semantics?

Chime,

Agreed. 

Another question is whether any particular RDF representation *should*
carry any authority.
To take the most trivial and unproblematic case, suppose the author is
just plain unskilled at rendering his meaning as triples. Maybe his RDF
is junk. Maybe we should ignore it.

You might say that this is just the same as the situation where a
particular doctor doesn't speak English very well, and issues a garbled
report -- and that's a familiar and unproblematic situation.

I'd argue it's different. I'd say it's more akin to the situation where
a doctor issues a report, then is asked to translate his own report into
another language that he doesn't speak very well. What do you do with
his translation -- do you give it any authority?

John


On Feb 2, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> On 2/2/10 8:25 AM, "John Madden" <john.madden@duke.edu> wrote:
>> This makes it rather difficult to use RDF in clinical care. With
English
>> language documents, we reject those that are not signed and original
(or
>> faithful copies of the signed original) for purposes of clinical
care. But in
>> the SW world, there is no special status. You can't sign it. You
can't
>> guarantee that your triples will stick together, or be picked apart.
> 
> There is no formal way to sign it, but you can get a trusted copy of
the
> original if the author provides a faithful representation in it in RDF
> (which is what GRDDL and other similar mechanisms - RDFa, etc. - are
all
> about).  This does carry some authority about how well the statements
> represent the information in the original artifact.  In addition, the
> concrete syntax can be signed digitally (same as any other file),
authorship
> can be asserted in the content (Clinician A created the set of RDF
triples
> B) in addition to other provenance such as when it was created which
> structured data source it was transcribed from.
> 
>> You can't even expect to know where a particular triple came from
(who was the
>> original assertor of the triple).
> 
> See above.
> 
> ----------------------
> Chime (chee-meh) Ogbuji (oh-bu-gee)
> Heart and Vascular Institute (Clinical Investigations)
> Architect / Informatician
> Cleveland Clinic (ogbujic@ccf.org)
> Ph.D. Student Case Western Reserve University
> (chimezie.thomas-ogbuji@case.edu)
> 
> 
> ===================================
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> 
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).  
> Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 17:04:08 UTC