- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:36:16 -0400
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Cc: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Mar 22, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Hausenblas, Michael wrote: > > Frank, > > Thanks for your feedback. Sorry for coming back to you that late; over > here in Europe it is Easter and I hang out with our children, > *I*annis, > *R*anya, and *S*aphira ;) Sorry for *my* delay in responding; Easter here too. > > Frankly, I don't have strong feelings about naming - I guess it very > much depends on the context. For example, when people read 'IIS', I > bet > most of them think of a piece of software a US-company tries to > offer as > an alternative to Apache. I don't. I think of our institute ;) So, > concluding, I'd be happy to rename it to something like gUCI > (generalised UCI) or UCIed or somesuch. Any proposals? My comment wasn't meant to be all that serious. Perhaps calling it "irs" will help people here remember it more easily. I did think it was funny though that, on the same day I received a message saying that my electronically-filed tax return had been accepted by "our" IRS, I received a message via SWIG announcing "your" irs. Hence my response. The existence of multiple meanings for the same word, set of initials, etc. has to be expected on the Semantic Web, which is one of the reasons why using URIs is important. After all, "RDF" stands for "refuse-derived fuel", doesn't it? > > However, I'd like to discuss real issues with UCI. For example, > looking > at the current i r s dump, I found the following: > > ?by ?s > ?p ?o > http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Elvis_Presley > http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs http://dbpedia.org/resource/God > > Hm. Makes me think. This could mean: > > 1. TimBL was playing around with i r s and actually stated this (I do > agree with the statement, however, can I trust it ? ;) > 2. Someone else made this statement, claiming that TimBL did > 3. Even more subtle, TimBL did this on purpose to demonstrate that you > should be careful trusting such statements on the (Semantic) Web > > In any case, I think the conclusion is to add a trust layer on top > of i > r s. I was thinking of adding OpenID for the 'says' part. Any > thoughts? For general UCI, you're certainly going to need to deal with those issues. Even if all a link does is claim something generic like "seeAlso", there's no reason to expect unscrupulous people wouldn't make bogus claims that there is some relationship between, say, the concept of "Semantic Web application" and their particular piece of software, so you want to know something about the source of the statement, and you also want some way of establishing that what the data records as the source is the *real* source (non- impersonation). But in essence this is no different for RDF than for natural language statements on the Web. > > Happy Easter! > > Cheers, > Michael > > And to you --Frank
Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 15:37:16 UTC