Re: No Standard Semantic Web Pragmatics?

Le 11 juin 2004, à 08:29, Sandro Hawke a écrit :
>> From: "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
>> How about the ``owner'' of the web page, just like for web pages that 
>> are
>> HTML or XML documents?
>
> I prefer to think the web page itself says things, and the owner bears
> *some* responsibility for the things said, but does not literally say
> them.

Hmmm. It doesn't work in many cases. It starts to drift in case of:
	- a weblog page + Comments
	- a wiki page without "identified" 	author

> I couldn't express something like that if the registered owner was 
> always taken
> as saying what the website said.

There are many social situations where there is a *need* for anonymous 
claims. For example, the secret vote is a case and one of they of 
democracy systems.

> While the RDF and OWL Recs don't require it, I think the best practice
> is to take all the RDF content obtained by dereferencing a URI used in
> RDF and treat it at a level of trust very close to the level of the
> URI's user.  Very much like you take one website's linking to another
> as a probable-endorsement.

	Ouch... Not at all. This is a very black and white vision of 
discussions, building of knowledge and social interactions. I can use 
references from many texts (web pages, ontologies, etc) and use them as 
a philosophical analysis of a topic. You have also the case where words 
change meaning in different kind of contexts and knowledges.

For example, this text:

"""	Et moi, et moi, moi qui chantais le poing dur
Il faut savoir jusqu'où je poussai la lâcheté.
Un soir dans un tramway en face de moi, un nègre.
C'était un nègre grand comme un pongo qui
essayait de se faire tout petit sur un banc de
crasseux de tramway ses jambes gigantesques et
l'avait laissé, le laissait. Son nez qui semblait
une péninsule en dérade et sa négritude même qui
se décolorait sous l'action d'une inlassable
mégie. """

On of the sentence goes like that:
""" It was a niger tall like a pongo which was trying to make himself 
very small  on a crass bench of a tramway..."""

You could qualify me as a racist.

If I say that it comes from the “Cahier d'un retour au pays natal”. Few 
persons will have understood, because they have an implicit knowledge.

If I say that it has been written by Aimée Césaire, more persons will 
understand, but still a minority

If I finally say, that Aimée Césaire was one of the most important 
person who has fought in French Caraibs against Neo-Colonialism and 
racism, and for a recognition of the Créole culture, it makes it a 
little bit clear.

A link to a Web site, or an ontology is not an endorsement in any way 
to the content which is linked. That would be silly and very dangerous. 
Many legal cases have happened the last few years because of deep 
linking and the meaning of linking.

> There's still a judgement call involved
> that I don't know how machine can help with yet.  (One idea I'm toying
> with is that the endorsement is much stronger if the linking page has
> been modified since the linked-to page was.)

	Still not.

> This is kind an intermediate position between the position I once
> advocated (that using a URI impies you believe the content) and what I
> think may be Peter's position (that there's no connection).

	There's no connection, except that you want to link to something, but 
you don't know "a priori" why it has been linked.

	Let's be a bit more silly, I could want to create a system with 
automatic generation of URI-poem where the links are selected 
automatically. The poem has still a meaning, an evocative one. It 
doesn't mean you endorse the content. This is happening for 
URLRoulette, for Search engines, etc.

	



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***