- From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:12:04 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <1e89d6a40907241212l56cec92ai29d5cd3fa5fbf65@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Pat & All --
It's my guess that this kind of discussion will fail to converge until it is
based on a stronger computational link between natural language and logical
notation.
Others make similar observations, see for example slides 10-12 of
www.reengineeringllc.com/Internet_Business_Logic_and_Semantic_Web_Presentation.pdf
Cheers, -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and
RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com Shared use is free
Adrian Walker
Reengineering
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:10 AM, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
>
> Hi Benjamin
>
> Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>
> On 22.07.2009 14:52:05, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>
>
> Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>
>
> Interesting. I guess this is another argument/example pro Hugh
> Glaser's idea of simply conflating resource IDs for the sake of
> "deployability". The example types <#business> as Vcard, Business
> and also as BusinessEntity which would usually be considered wrong
> RDF, but, as argued before, is more intuitive for HTML authors,
> especially if they found their way to the SemWeb through pragmatic
> solutions like microformats. We should really give this contextual
> semantics idea another thought.
>
>
> Actually, I disagree completely
>
> Actually, not sure I agree either :-)
>
>
> heh, neither am I ;)
> But if even RDFers get the semantics wrong or simply interpret a
> non-exact schema individually for their personal use case, it just
> shows that data consumers and app builders will have to go beyond
> strict RDF principles.
>
>
> Actually, for me it confirms that
>
> 1. there can be differences between the formal semantics and the social
> semantics of elements in conceptual structures.
> 2. it is practically impossible to define the intended meaning of
> conceptual elements solely by formal means.
>
>
> Seems to me this is too pessimistic. The lesson I would draw is that the
> formal semantic analysis needs to become more aware
> of, and able to properly take account of, these social aspects of meaning. And
> while this is a challenge, I don't think that it is 'practically
> impossible'. However, it is longer term than is needed for currently
> deployability, I will concede :-)
>
>
> But we should avoid differences between the social semantics and the formal
> semantics as much as possible, instead of celebrating
> the social re-definition of formally defined conceptual elements, as it
> happens in the case of owl:sameAs or the use of owl:imports.
> Some tweaks may be necessary to make the Web of Linked Data fly. A too
> "tweakish" attitude, however, will just create another
> tower of bable.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> The main challenge in building good vocabularies is the conflict between
> two extremes:
> 1. Very fine-grained conceptual structures (many classes, many elements)
> are more burdensome to fill with data, but empower a better mechanized reuse
> of the data.
> 2. Very coarse conceptual structures are easy to populate, but require a
> lot of human intelligence or machine guesswork when processing or reusing
> the data.
>
> See also http://www.heppnetz.de/files/iswc-lightning-talk-hepp3.png
>
> In a broader sense and based on about ten years of conceptual modeling for
> exchanging information, the key task when building useful vocabularies /
> schemas / ontologies for the Web of Linked Data is
> to find categories of existence (classes, properties, ...) that
>
> 1. Are easy to populate from existing data sources (popular database
> schemas etc.)
> 2. Are sufficiently subtle to allow machine-processing of the data (e.g.
> separating values from units of measurement)
>
>
> And, I would add, are such that their subtleties can be quickly and easily
> understood by the people who will be required to adopt them, once they are
> properly explained.
>
> 3. Are valid across multiple individuals (e.g. that class membership is
> agreed by many users)
> 4. Are valid across time (e.g. that class membership is relatively stable
> over time - "MostPopularSinger" is a class with very dynamic class
> membership)
> 5. Are valid across multiple contexts (e.g. that class membership remains
> valid if the data is used in novel contexts)
>
>
> Often, however, validity is in the eye of the beholder. Many of our
> knowledge interoperability problems arise because people have learned to
> reject certain kinds of classifications as mistaken or inappropriate, when
> in fact they are no *formal* reasons why they cannot be used. The formalisms
> are often less restrictive than the prejudices imposed upon them by their
> human users. One sees this very often when people object to 'mixing data
> with metadata' , for example, or to classes which violate perceived 'layers'
> of abstraction.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
> Three slides on this topic:
>
> http://www.heppnetz.de/files/eswc01.pdf
> http://www.heppnetz.de/files/iswc-lightning-talk-hepp2.png
>
>
> Martin
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail: mhepp@computer.org
> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype: mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
> ========================================================================
>
> Webcast:http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
>
> Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009:
> "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp
>
> Tool for registering your business:http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
>
> Overview article on Semantic Universe:http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe
>
> Project page and resources for developers:http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
> Tutorial materials:
> Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
>
>
> <martin_hepp.vcf>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 19:12:47 UTC