- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:54:57 -0800
- To: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- CC: 'Joshua Allen' <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, 'Danny Ayers' <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, 'Seth Russell' <russell.seth@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Geoff Chappell wrote: > OTOH, if you want to begin to migrate some meaning out of the application > and into the data, you have to try to model your data in ways that will > allow the machines to perform meaningful reasoning. Given the current state > of semweb technologies, that means using rdf/owl ontologies because that's > the only way to license inferences. Hopefully more expressive mechanisms > (e.g. rules) will join the party at some point so we don't have to continue > to force feed everything into a classification problem :-) If that's "the only way to license inferences" we're probably all in as much over our heads as I am. Or "inference" has some techno meaning distinct from its real language sense? What is an inference and why must it be licensed? Is it like a dog, a car or a driver (or perhaps a marriage)? I get the feeling that we are heading back to some central authority that heads the hierarchy and in Tim's words "owns the roots to the ontology tree and charges for the fruit therefrom". Maybe "meaningful reasoning" is a combination oxymoron/tautology. I really shouldn't venture into these threads without chemical preparation of some kind. Love.
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 23:55:13 UTC