W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2005

Re: How will the semantic web emerge - OO languages

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:41:57 +0100
Message-Id: <C469529D-C12C-4AE8-817C-9EF777584E7F@bblfish.net>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>

On 21 Dec 2005, at 22:31, Hans Teijgeler wrote:

> Henry,
> I liked your last statement, because we are already working on our
> subject since the late eighties..... But perhaps it is a kind of
> hyperbole, so when you are even dumber, it takes longer again.

The fact that some of these technologies have been studied for a long  
time but only are now coming to fruition does not in any way say  
something about the lack of intelligence of the people who used to  
work on those technologies. The internet was around in the 70ies, but  
it required the massive dissemination of cheap PCs for it to be able  
to show its value. Sometimes it is just a matter of the right  
conditions being in place.

In 400 BC the early atomist Democritus wrote:

The universe is infinite because it has not been produced by a  
creator. The causes of what now exists had no beginning.
There is an infinite number of worlds of different sizes: some are  
larger than ours, some have no sun or moon, others have suns or moons  
that are bigger than ours. Some have many suns and moons. Worlds are  
spaced at differing distances from each other; in some parts of the  
universe there are more worlds, in other parts fewer. In some areas  
they are growing, in other parts, decreasing. They are destroyed by  
collision with one another. There are some worlds with no living  
creatures, plants, or moisture.

]] http://bblfish.net/blog/page7.html#2005/06/24/12-54-28-860

It took a long time before the different political and technological  
pieces were in place to proove him right.
> I took the liberty to quote you on the front page of our website  
> [1]. I
> hope you give me permission to do so.

That is not a liberty that you can take. It is a right you have.  
Everything that is publishable on the internet should be  
hyperlinkeable. Don't belive those who would convince you otherwise.

But if I were you I would point to the context of the conversation a  
bit more precisely. The headers of these e-mails contain an X- 
Archived-At header that contains a permalink to the post. In the case  
above it is:

X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/ 

> Regards,
> Hans

All the best,


> [1] http://www.infowebml.ws
> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Henry Story
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:12 PM
> To: <tim.glover@bt.com>
> Cc: Semantic Web
> Subject: Re: How will the semantic web emerge - OO languages
> On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:42, <tim.glover@bt.com> <tim.glover@bt.com>  
> wrote:
>> Surely not! How do you make that deduction? There is nothing to
>> stop you
>> writing such a system, but it is not supported by the official RDF
>> semantics.
> I think the distinction is between what is, and what you can deduce.
> If I steal your wallet I am a thief. You need not deduce that. But
> that does not make it less so. The foaf ontology makes certain
> statements about the relations between things. A consumer of these
> statements need not be very intelligent, indeed it need not even be
> able to make any inferences. It does not follow that those inferences
> are not contained in the ontology.
> Sometimes of course it helps to be dumber, as it allows one to act a
> lot faster.
> Henry
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web- 
>> request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Henry Story
>> Sent: 21 December 2005 15:18
>> To: Russell Duhon
>> Cc: Frank Manola; semantic-web@w3.org; Joshua Allen
>> Subject: Re: How will the semantic web emerge - OO languages
>> RDF is a declarative language so things are at first view somewhat
>> different. We are working in a space where inferencing is the norm.
>> So if something
>> [ foaf:firstName "Henry"].
>> you can deduce
>> [ foaf:firstName "Henry";
>>    rdf:type foaf:Person ].
>> This is not like saying "treat it like a foaf:Person". It *is* a
>> foaf:Person. Those relations go hand in hand. When you say one, you
>> are commited to the other. You are so committed in fact that you
>> don't need to state the foaf:Person part. It is part of your first
>> statement. Just as when you say x is a bachelor, you are saying he is
>> an unmarried man.
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.3/209 - Release Date:
> 12/21/2005
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.3/209 - Release Date:
> 12/21/2005
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 23:42:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:55 UTC