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

Re: Madonna / Data + Application Semantics

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:02:21 -0500
Message-Id: <d53fb2b4a888bd4e41c3edb35a4cb266@w3.org>
To: semantic-web@w3.org

Le 09 févr. 2005, à 10:18, Henry Story a écrit :
> Logic, like most of mathematics is based on such simple and indubitable
> premisses, that trying to put them in doubt, especially for engineering
> reasons, would be like seeing a bridge builder doubt that mathematics
> was valid because his bridge fell apart.

The discussion is really interesting and strikes me always as in the 
end what do you want of RDF and OWL. Or what wants to do with it?

Mathematics is not based on simple and indubitable premisses. It's a 
bit more complicated than that. Mathematics has usually its own logics 
inside mathematics, but get pretty dirty when used in the read world. 
You can't solve certain equations for example, to find a solution, 
there's a need for numerical calculations, and comes the world of 
approximate answer, not a logical, exact and unique answer. The same 
than the Madonna problem.

I have a physics background and the world is made of statistic, not 
logical reasoning. :) Every assertion made are tied to a model (which 
might change) and every assertion is an evaluation of factors, not a 
yes or no. The world is fuzzy (it reminds me of the woody allen movie 
where the main character complains is blur on the image, but he has 
really became blur in life.)

The bridge builder might be right in the sense, maybe they don't use 
the right mathematical models to build the bridge. Try to send a 
satellite in space with Newtonian physics and only the mathematics 
known at this time. :)))

For the notion of naming, I want to believe in fact even for an URI 
pointing to something to describe a meaning, it's not a question of 
unique absolute naming and then meaning. I want to believe in a range 
of naming and interpretation, a social process.
	Many people says this means that, then the statistical process, the 
history, the circumstances give a particular meaning to it, only valid 
for a certain period of time and in a certain context.
	And we can imagine that it could be the same for semantic agents. The 
interesting thing is what's happening when the semantics agents do not 
agree with the humans, and they came with their own statistical 

	Futuro-Weird-Imagination: Another slighty related, can we do poetry 
with RDF and OWL? In the sense can poetry (interpretation of senses, 
games on meaning, evocation of beauty and pain, etc.) be created by/for 
semantics agents.

PS: Maybe, I should try to diminish my rations of Camembert (cheese), 
It's melting all over my mind. :)

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 16:02:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:00 UTC