RE: Comment on "Meaning and the Semantic Web"

> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:27 AM
> To: John Black
> 
> Dan Brickley made what I think is an excellent response to 
> this question,
> but I'll provide a response as well.
> 
> From: "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
> Subject: Comment on "Meaning and the Semantic Web"
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 21:31:17 -0400
> 
> > 
> > Bijan, Peter,
> > 
> > In your poster paper, "Meaning and the Semantic Web",
> >  
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/publications/me
> aning.pdf,
> >  you make the following statement:
> > 
> > "One might think that our account of meaning thus results 
> in complete
> > anarchy in the Semantic Web. Even if so, we believe we have
> > embraced only those portions of anarchy that are necessary 
> to prevent
> > totalitarianism, for any proposal for Semantic Web meaning
> > that cuts off easy access to disagreements will inevitably end up
> > stultifying the Semantic Web."
> > 
> > I am finding this reference to totalitarianism hard to accept.
> > 
> > In the first place, if you mean it literally, and a typical 
> definition 
> > of totalitarianism reads like this, "Of, relating to, 
> being, or imposing 
> > a form of government in which the political authority 
> exercises absolute 
> > and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is 
> > subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural 
> > expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes 
> all autonomous 
> > institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. 
> > Schlesinger, Jr.)." 
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=totalitarianism
> > Please explain how any of the proposals that have been discussed 
> > could lead to this?
> 
> Under a scheme where the owner of a URI reference (ruler of a 
> state) has
> absolute control over the meaning of the URI reference, it is 
> the case that
> if one wants to communicate using a particular URI reference 
> (live in a
> particular state) then one must completely subjugate one's 
> own view of the
> meaning of the URI reference (one's own thoughts) to that of 
> the owner of
> the URI reference (ruler of the state).  One can, indeed, not use a
> particular URI reference (leave the state) but then one really cannot
> communicate with other users of that URI reference (inhabitants of the
> state).

These are remarkable:
1/  owner of a URI reference = ruler of a state
2/  use a URI reference = live in a state
3/  one's view of the meaning of a URI reference = one's own thoughts
4/  using someone else's meaning of a URI reference instead of 
	your own meaning = complete subjugation of one's thoughts about 
	that URI to the thoughts of the owner of that URI reference
5/  not use a URI reference = leave the state
6/  other users of a URI reference = inhabitants of the state.

1/ I own a web site. I pay for the domain name. I pay for the server. 
I write all the content and the URIs used to locate it. This does not 
make me like the ruler of a state. I have no subjects. Certainly my 
visitors are not like subjects, they visit briefly and leave. I don't 
have a police force, a militia, or a central bank. I just don't see this.  
Furthermore, there are millions of other such sites, in the free world, 
of all sizes and persuasions. Even if everyone could fix the meaning of 
their URIs this is not equivalent to concentration of all power in the 
hands of a few. It would still result in competitive marketplace of ideas, 
the very antithesis of a totalitarian regime. Because what seems to work 
best is a balance of adversarial powers. I think a better analogy would 
that I am like the author of a book.

2/ If someone uses my URI reference, that's not like living 
in my state since I don't have a state. Using a French word does 
not make me a citizen of France. Someone may be aware of others who 
use my URI references and thus want to use them to communicate to 
those people. But again, I just don't see any similarity between using 
a URI reference and living in a particular state. Using my URI 
references is more like someone reading or quoting my book.

3/ Ok. I suppose my own view of the meaning of a URI reference is 
like my own thoughts. At least it is one of my thoughts.  Often 
my thought is that the meaning is as it is given.  Your own view 
of a URI reference is more like what someone thinks about a book.

4/ Now this is the most remarkable. I use words I didn't invent 
all the time. And I strive to use them as accurately as possible, 
often consulting the dictionary. Doing this does not subjugate my 
thoughts to the owners of those words, of the dictionary, or the 
public domain. Using meanings of words I take as given, I can make 
all sorts of statements expressing my own thoughts. Only vary 
rarely am I tempted to create a new word, or alter the meaning of 
an existing word. But if I need to I can, just as anyone can coin 
a new URI reference.  Using someone else URI references is more 
like trying to understand the meaning of book as the author intends 
it before making your own judgement of it.

/5 Again, not to use someone's URI reference is just not like 
being banished. You use it if its meaning suits you, otherwise 
you use another. To say you want to use it, because not being 
able to use it would be like banishment since you would be 
prevented from communicating with other inhabitants, on the one 
hand, and then say but wait, you don't like the meaning of it, 
and intend to change it, on the other hand, and still use it 
to communicate with others who do use the given meaning, just 
seems like grasping. You want it for its meaning, but then you 
also want to alter that very meaning. Its unlikely you can have 
it both ways unless you stipulatively give it a new meaning, 
which is a laborious affair indeed.  Not using a URI reference 
is more like not reading a book, or not quoting it.

/6 Other users of a URI reference are not like inhabitants of a 
state, since owning a web site is not like ruling a state. I have 
never seen it argued that the users of a language formed a state.
These are more like other readers of the same book.

> So, yes, opposing expression (including all forms of 
> expression,
> not just political and cultural express) is indeed 
> suppressed, and this
> does lead to a very large degree of control.
> 

I'm not sure how you get to this. I don't see how the millions of 
authors of URIs dictating the referent of them leads to a 
concentration of power in the hands of a few over newspaper and 
magazine publication, radio and television broadcasting, postal 
mail, assembly, public speech, demonstration, not even via the 
slippery slope mechanism. It is hard for me to see how the semantic 
web will ever be the only venue for making statements. Unless 
someone said, and acquired the power to enforce, that a URI should 
have a single meaning *AND* no other form of communication will 
be allowed to mention that referent. Furthermore, I don't see how 
fixing the referent of a URI could lead to a concentration of 
economic power, military, police, and intelligence powers, as 
well as executive, legislative, and judicial power, not to mention 
religious and other cultural forms of power. All of which are 
necessary to call a form of government a totalitarianism.

> I would even go further in the analogy.  One often wants to use URI
> references from multiple owners, so one would be subject to multiple
> controls on one's expression.  These controls could (and, I 
> think, would
> often) become mutually incompatable, leading to collapses of 
> communication.

I agree this is a technical problem that needs to be addressed, by
some type of context mechanism.

> > In the second place, hoping that you mean this loosely and 
> > metaphorically, even given one of the many proposals for fixing 
> > the meaning of URIs, assuming they could work, what would prevent 
> > you from creating an entirely new set of URIs with which to use to 
> > make whatever contrary statements you desired?  
> 
> Nothing whatsoever.  So what?  If I *choose* to be contrary 
> in this way
> then no one will talk to me, because I will be using my own private
> language.  This really only hurts myself.

I agree. I was just arguing in the extreme. Of course you wouldn't 
need to create an entirely new set of URIs, and since, as you point 
out, communication depends on using existing terms (or meanings, 
as I would say), you wouldn't want to. But if you *could* do an 
entire set for yourself, you can surely create just the few that 
you want to alter the meaning of.

> 
> > Why is it *necessary* 
> > for you to use anyone else's URIs at all?  
> 
> Because without any common terms, there is absolutely no 
> possibility of
> communication.

It is the common *meaning* that allows us to communicate - not 
just the terms.  At the United Nations, many terms are used from 
many languages, but communication takes place never-the-less, because 
many terms can be used for the same or similar meaning.

> 
> > If you are free to 
> > create any URIs you may possibly need, with whatever 
> meaning you may 
> > wish to associate with them, in order to state whatever it 
> is you want 
> > to state, how can you then say that another set of URIs forms a 
> > totalitarianism?  
> 
> Because to communicate, you have to share terms.  These terms become a
> shared communication resource that should not be totally 
> subject to the
> arbitrary whims of the ``owner'' of the term.  

Again, to communicate, you have to share meanings. I think the 
market place of adversarial power centers will work this out the 
best. URI references that shifted, would be avoided in favor 
of those that are stable. Also, if it is important that they 
should not be subject to the whims of the 'owner', it should 
likewise not be subject to the whims of anyone else either, 
and for the same reasons.

> 
> Consider a different analogy, related to the English 
> language.  Suppose
> that the meanings of English words that start with each 
> particular Latin
> letter are mandated to be those that are found in some 
> particular on-line
> dictionary.  I maintain that the owners of each of these 
> dictionaries would
> then have incredible power.  Sure, I could remove myself from 
> the control
> of a particular dictionary owner by refraining from using words whose
> definition depends on that dictionary, but I would then, in 
> essence have to
> invent an entirely new language (and one using non-Latin 
> characters).  But
> then who would I be able to talk to?
> 
> > For I have never seen any proposal that requires 
> > that there be only one URI for any referent, but only 
> proposals that 
> > any URI have only one referent.  So there can be many URIs for any
> > referent.  So if you want to dissent, you can always create 
> a new URI.
> 
> Sure, but how will I be able to communicate that my URI 
> reference has the
> same referent as the customary one?  Remember, if I use the 
> customary URI
> reference, I have to then abide by all the meaning ascribed 
> to it by its
> owner. 

This is the problem of all inventors of words and meanings. You 
can't escape it. It is done through initial baptism then marketing. 
That's why its not done constantly. Its more economical to find a 
word that suits your purpose than to make one up and market it.  

> > The model theory seems to allow for this:
> > "There are several aspects of meaning in RDF which are 
> ignored by this 
> > semantics; in particular, it treats URI references as simple names, 
> > ignoring aspects of meaning encoded in particular URI forms 
> [RFC 2396]..."
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/  
> 
> This has no bearing on the issue under discussion.  
>
> > Thus you can create any *possible web* you 
> > want, in order to say anything you want, and this would be 
> true even if 
> > all *actual web* URIs were somehow given fixed meanings, 
> wouldn't it?
> 
> Yes, sure, but, as above, I then loose the ability to communicate.

Not, as I said above, if you rely mostly on existing URI references 
with commonly known and fixed meanings, that you don't disagree 
with, and only make up new ones when you do.
 
> > This hardly seems a prescription for totalitarianism.  
> 
> Well, yes, I will give you that totalitarianism only comes 
> out if you want
> to communicate with others.  Perhaps the paper should have 
> included that as
> a premise.  :-)

Totalitarianism is based in part on preventing real communication. 
And good communication can prevent or destroy totalitarianism.

> > John Black
> > Senior Software Architect,
> > Time & Expense Collection Group,
> > Enterprise Systems Division,
> > Deltek Systems, Inc. www.deltek.com
> > Office: 703-885-9656
> > Mobile: 434-825-3765
> > JohnBlack@deltek.com
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 21:51:22 UTC