Re: Comment on "Meaning and the Semantic Web"

On Jun 1, 2004, at 11:14 PM, John Black wrote:

>
>> From: Bijan Parsia
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:02 PM
>> To: John Black
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2004, at 9:12 PM, John Black wrote:
[snip]
>> So, using owl:imports introduces a dependancy that just using
>> the terms
>> doesn't.
>>
>> You could also cut and paste the FOAF ontology into your document by
>> hand. That would, on our view, preserve you from not-in-your-control
>> meaning shifts.
>
> Agreed, this would do it.  But it seems to violate something that has
> been essential to the success of the web architecture.

If I had a nickel....

Not only am I unwebarchtiecturallysavvy, but I'm unpatriotic, too! So 
there!

"Everyone can say anything about anything"...

>> You could also import http://foo.com/myfoafmirror/ (pace copyright
>> issues) (which actually might come up with owl:imports). The imported
>> document could use the foaf prefix and provide more stabilty.
>
> You mean make a mirror of a snapshot of the FOAF site? a cached 
> version?
> and import that? I

Yes.

>  don't know what you mean.

What you asked above. I've in fact used this technique for development.

[snip]
>> notion of ontological context. It
>> happens not to be in any spec, nor is it, contra some view, at all
>> imposed by web architecture. You can propose it, but I, for one, will
>> vigorously resist.
>>
>> But I feel like there must be a thinko here. I'm finding this
>> symmetry
>> argument impossible to take seriously.
>
> Let's use a little stage setting here.  Suppose I have a search engine
> agent that populates my web site with results of a semantic web enabled
> search.  I am in particular looking for FOAF documents with a 
> particular
> content.

Are there "FOAF" documents?

What is a "FOAF document"? Any RDF document that uses a FOAF uri? What 
is the proper mimetype of a FOAF document? The FOAF specification 
clearly has bits that go far beyond what RDF/XML supports (e.g., the 
use of seeAlso). Interesting, a FOAF document can *only* be in XML:

http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#sec-foafsyntax

"So, what is the 'FOAF document format'? FOAF files are just text 
documents (well, Unicode documents). They are written in XML syntax, 
and adopt the conventions of the Resource Description Framework (RDF). 
In addition, the FOAF vocabulary defines some useful constructs that 
can appear in FOAF files, alongside other RDF vocabularies defined 
elsewhere. "

But perhaps not RDF/XML only?

If I have a 500,000 triple file and it contains one _:b foaf:mbox 
mailto:... is it a FOAF document?

>   Now everything is working fine until one day, documents that
> used to be retrieved correctly stop showing up and others that I've 
> never
> seen before - and don't want - do start showing up. Now I have to
> debug this. Two equally plausible hypotheses occur to me. Either Dan
> has gone bad, and decided to mess with the FOAF schema, or my search
> agent has failed and its mistakes are equivalent to what Dan might
> have done.

Or all the data has changed.

> I can't tell which.  My documents, using the output
> of the search engine, are defective in the same way in either case.
> This is the symmetry argument.  In a society of communicators,
> correct interpretation is just as important as correct publishing.

It would be nice if you had kept the symmatrands consistent instead of 
introducing an extra intermediary (and eliminating the authors!!). If, 
on day 1, the search engine returned my "FOAF file" (because I imported 
the foaf schema, or whatever) and, on day 2, it doesn't (because I cut 
and paste and modified the foaf schema) then it strikes me that the 
results are correct. It's *you* who want to 'find' my document, 
regardless of what I put in it. Hence the asymmetry.

What if I want to set up a search engine using my alternative 
vocabulary, or offer a flag "interpret according to Mean Dan's or Nice 
Bijan's version of the ontology"...this is a problem, how? In that 
case, you, the consumer, know what's happening and have control, in, it 
seems, a useful and approriate way. I, the FOAF file author, have 
appropriate control, too. If you are going to interpret my document 
according to Dan's schema, you are clearly going beyond what I 
intended. This may, or may not, be a problem. Finally, Dan still has 
control over his foaf schema 1) in virtue of being the author of the 
document with write access and 2) in virtue of his IP rights and 3) by 
control over the "obvious" and popular URL for that document.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 10:23:54 UTC