- From: Patrick Durusau <Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:51:25 -0400
- To: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
- Cc: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
John, Topic maps offer a way to add in the information you note as missing. Note that in the following when I use the term "topic maps" I am not making reference to a particular data model or syntax but the underlying paradigm of topic maps. In a nutshell, what topic maps allow is for any surrogate for a subject to be defined as possessing certain properties, one of which is a subject identity property (SIP) that can be compared to the SIP property of other surrogate for a subject to determine whether the two surrogates represent the same subject. Where that becomes important is where two different systems or ontologies may have different ways of identifying surrogates about the same subject. With topic maps, the topic map designer can create surrogates that equate two seemingly different SIPs as in fact identifing surrogates for the same subject. Obviously I am eliding over a lot of detail in the foregoing but the gist is that not only can you have your own view of what identifies a surrogate to be about a particular subject, but you can also have the ability to say that your surrogate represents the same subject as surrogates made using an entirely different approach. And more importantly, you can disclose what underlies your choices so that others can make the same decisions as to whether their surrogates are about the same subjects. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick John Black wrote: >>From: Adrian Walker >>Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:08 PM >> >>John -- >> >>It's good to see someone stating the problems -- the first >>step to a solution! >> >>A few of your stated problems concerning intended >>interpretations and URIs >>are addressed in the "Semantic Web Presentation" at >>www.reengineeringllc.com . >> >>In case your are now thinking, "Oh great, Yet Another >>Powerpoint", there's >>an online system in which you can run all the examples in the >>presentation, >>using a browser. You can also use a browser to write and run >>your own >>examples. >> >>HTH, -- Adrian >> > > > But you don't seem to be working towards a STANDARD solution. > There have been many proprietary knowledge representation and > agent communication language systems developed over the years. > Some of them are arguably more powerful or sophisticated than > RDF or OWL. Yet none of them can talk to the rest. I prefer to > support the ones being developed by the w3c because they are > based on public, open standards. There is at least a chance > that all agents based on these standards will be able to > communicate with each other. > > John > > >> >> INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC >> >> www.reengineeringllc.com >> >>Dr. Adrian Walker >>Reengineering LLC >>PO Box 1412 >>Bristol >>CT 06011-1412 USA >> >>Phone: USA 860 583 9677 >>Cell: USA 860 830 2085 >>Fax: USA 860 314 1029 >> >> >>At 06:17 PM 6/10/04 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >>>So here is what it looks like to me. >>> >>>A general purpose communication system, where: >>> >>>There is no standard way to tell who is making statements. >>> >>>There is no standard way to tell whether whoever is doing it is >>>asserting, denying, quoting, or just experimenting with those >>>statements. >>> >>>Its a new, artificial language but there is no standard way for >>>fixing or learning the intended interpretation of its terms, URIrefs. >>> >>>URIrefs, most of which look just like URLs, are to be treated as >>>strings bearing no standard relation to the URLs they look >>>like, or to anything that might be done with them on the web. >>> >>>You can reason over it, but everything stated is considered true, >>>and there is no standard way for anything to be unsaid. >>> >>>And the people that would need to be involved to develop some >>>plain old-fashioned standard language pragmatics[1,2] are either >>>firmly against it or are too busy out writing code with it to >>>bother. >>> >>>Do I understand this correctly? >>> >>> >>>[1] The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction >>>http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/semprag.html >>>[2] Pragmatics of the Semantic Web >>>http://semanticweb2002.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/proceedings/Posi >> > tion/kim.pdf > >> >>John Black > > > > -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 11:52:43 UTC