- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:46:57 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Patrick FYI, I am now a member of the SWBP Working Group and, as you will be aware, also share your opinions on the importance of bootstrapping mechanisms for the Semantic Web. In particular I agree that the issue of authority is one that should be investigated from the point of best practice. Obviously there is much debate to be had here - and I’m aware that raw personal opinion is a much sharper, but far less effective, tool than collaborative study - but personally I am not sure that even the authority specified in a URI itself can be taken as a valid source of ‘boot’ or ‘self-description information. My preference now follows the work of Jon Klienberg (Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment.). Its been a while since I read Jon’s work properly, but if I remember correctly he proposes an algorythmic scheme based both upon patterns found internally within a URI (semantics,syntax, structure etc), patterns found within the external URIs that reference, and are referenced by, the URI and the patterns formed by the references themselves (i.e., the context in which the URI exists). This provides a much richer picture of a URI than semantic self-referencing on its own, and possibly provides a valid base on which also to establish composite IFP schemes for automatically aggregating dynamic ontologies. Obviously, however, such schemes involve much higher levels of complexity than is currently common on the Semantic Web today. Nevertheless, for me, authority is a holistic concept that involves varying degrees of trust – an over used term if ever there was one. It cannot necessarily be represented purely via formal semantics. The embodiement of stochastic based algorithms, either within, or in layers above the Semantic Web may well be one route to achieving authoritative credibility for use by automated mechanisms such as semantic web agents. My current position is that standardisation on such algorithms could, ultimately, be of more value to the Web’s future than applying best practice rules solely at the semantic language level. We shall see. Perhaps this is a valid subject for the SWBP WG? Following on this line of thought, I consider your semantic request “tell me about this thing”, to too generic, unfortunately, to be useful. Additionally, relying on default semantic schemes to define default schemes of consistency, for me, appears to degrade the deliberately open descriptive mechanisms behind the Semantic Web. Perhaps a better idea might be, “tell me how to find something about this think that I can trust with a given degree of certainty. If you can’t provide me with such a specific method, Ill default to my own preferred means which are….yada, yada”. Please forgive me for rambling, but I too consider this an important area. I look forward to the day when autonomic issues like this possibly become mainstream agenda items on a number of standards based working groups. Regards Phil Tetlow Senior Consultant IBM Business Consulting Services Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328 <Patrick.Stickler @nokia.com> Sent by: To public-swbp-wg-re <public-swbp-wg@w3.org> quest@w3.org cc Subject 08/10/2004 11:44 Some thoughts on effective access to "primary" vs "secondary" resources, consistency of descriptions, and bootstrapping the semantic web... I draw the SWBP WG's attention to some comments which I feel are relevant to the WG's activities: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2004Oct/0086.html Regards, Patrick
Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 13:34:10 UTC