- From: Martin Hepp (UIBK) <martin.hepp@uibk.ac.at>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:49:46 +0100
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- CC: Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>, Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, Paul Roe <p.roe@qut.edu.au>, James Michael Hogan <j.hogan@qut.edu.au>
Peter Ansell wrote: > The world doesn't work by figuring out exactly what everything means > and then keeping definitions intact after that. Imagining the semantic > web to agree with a contract where different identities have to be > bit-perfect in order to recognise anything about them seems to be > missing reality. Peter (A.), you are so damn right! Let's look at how human language reaches and maintains consensus between symbols (terms) and meaning: Simply by many people using the same term for the same thing. And quite clearly, the evolution of the vocabulary must be under the control of the users of the vocabulary, so that they can renew or update their ontological commitment, and extend the vocabulary on the spot. In natural languages, anybody can introduce new terms when needed, and often consensual usage of the new term establishes quickly. I am confident that the Semantic Web will only work at large if the control over the domain vocabularies is in the hands of the users and tightly coupled with their usage for annotation or querying - no "dead", officially standardized terminology. The latter is bound to fail, because it will be too slow for quickly evolving domains (who want to wait for ISO to standardize the term "folksonomy" or "iPhone"?) and because centralized agencies will not be able to foresee all needs for conceptual elements in the domain (see [1] and [2]]. It's the massive, consensual usage that yields authoritative symbols for entities. Martin PS: These and additional aspects are discussed in my "Possible Ontologies" paper, available at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf [1] F.A. Hayek, F. A.: "The Use of Knowledge in Society", American Economic Review, XXXV, No. 4; September, 1945, pp. 519-30. http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html [2] Leonard E. Read: "I, Pencil. My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read", Dec. 1958 http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html, ----------------------------------- martin hepp, http://www.heppnetz.de
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 08:50:34 UTC