- From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:54:40 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, "Shi, Xuan" <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>, "'drew.mcdermott@yale.edu '" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk
Jim --
You wrote...
At 06:31 PM 11/23/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>there really is a difference between syntax and semantics used in the
>sense of "grounded symbols" where the grounding is in URI space
That should indeed help machines to communicate. However, it leaves a
semantic Grand Canyon between what the software is doing and whatever
concepts nontechnical users of the software are thinking about.
To put it another way, few people would accept an automatically generated
business deal (or military plan) that depends on humans understanding a
collection of URIs.
Slides 14-17 of [1] illustrate this. Others have also commented along the
same lines [2].
Sooner or later, some amount of natural language processing is going to
have to help to bridge the canyon. As you know, there is an open
vocabulary approach to this [3].
Cheers, -- Adrian
[1]
http://www.reengineeringllc.com/Internet_Business_Logic_e-Government_Presentation.pdf
[2] As we read and write N3, communicating in RDF, we need to share an
understanding of what each URI means. We often pick URIs which offer
clues about meaning, such as
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/demo1/biology#Dog
but the text of the URI still gives only a clue. Would a wolf qualify
as a one of these? How about a Dingo? We can't tell just by looking at
the name. It's even possible the URI text is misleading, and the intended
meaning has nothing to do with dogs
---http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/ontologies
[3] Internet Business Logic, online at www.reengineeringllc.com . Shared
use is free.
Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA
Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 00:55:03 UTC