Re: ‘New ontology pages’ as Semantic Web foundation

I like the idea of expressing need.  The concept reminds me of lending tree...you need something, express it semantically, and agents respond.  Seems like that can be done via any structured data mechanism, including the ones we already have.




________________________________
From: Alex Abramovich <webdao@yahoo.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org; public-owl-dev@w3.org; public-rif-dev@w3.org; pellet-users@lists.owldl.com; swi-prolog@iai.uni-bonn.de; users-prolog@gnu.org; web4lib@webjunction.org; computational.science@lists.iccsa.org; drools-research@redhat.com; protege-owl@lists.stanford.edu; dbworld@cs.wisc.edu; ruleml-all@ruleml.org; event@in.tu-clausthal.de; jena-dev@groups.yahoo.com; protege-discussion@lists.stanford.edu; info-ic@listes.irisa.fr; i-KMForum@yahoogroupes.fr; bull-i3 <bull-i3@irit.fr>; km-gc-montreal@yahoogroupes.fr; semanticweb@yahoogroups.com; Elsnet-list@elsnet.org; LN@cines.fr; ndt@dirf.org; public-semweb-ui@w3.org; www-annotation@w3.org; seweb-list@lists.sti2.at; protege-discussion@mailman.stanford.edu; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; www-rdf-logic@w3.org; dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>; seworld@cs.colorado.edu; public-owl-dev@w3.org; public-rif-dev@w3.org; pellet-users@lists.owldl.com;
 swi-prolog@iai.uni-bonn.de; users-prolog@gnu.org; web4lib@webjunction.org; computational.science@lists.iccsa.org; drools-research@redhat.com; protege-owl@lists.stanford.edu; dbworld@cs.wisc.edu; ruleml-all@ruleml.org; event@in.tu-clausthal.de; jena-dev@groups.yahoo.com
Sent: Sat, February 6, 2010 6:50:43 AM
Subject: ‘New ontology pages’ as Semantic Web foundation


 
Hi all,
   This is a reminder that an original idea of
Semantic Web is based on three foundations, namely, XML, RDF and ontology
pages. Any Web resource’s content must be duplicated in the
machine-readable form (ontology page); RDF will link a total Web content into
one semantic network (Semantic Web); intelligent agents, defined on this
semantic network, will serve the Web visitors.
   As it seems to me, ‘Berners-Lee at al’ expected that Web resource’s owners will write ontology pages themselves . 
Unfortunately, their expectation failed.
Why?
   On the one
hand, Web resources’ owners don’t ready to pay more for their Web resources maintain,
and any Web design’s complication conflict with real tendency of
the simplification (and even automation) of Web resources’
construction.
  On the other
hand, ‘Berners-Lee at al’ didn’t provide both any unified
scenario for the ontology pages creation and connectivesemantic
mechanism.   
   The ontology
pages idea was rebranded, as rightly
observed Dan Brickley, into other
variationson the theme, related to Linked Data and
such instruments as RDFa, GRDDL etc., which aim to integrate RDF more closely
into user-facing Web content.
As a result Semantic
Web engineers must link now more than 13 billion RDF triples and unknown
quantity of independent ontologies.
   I suggest returning to the original ontology
pages’ idea based on the new knowledge representation language, namely on Need Language (NL). Herewith, I assumethat Web publisher is extremely interested
in success of the publication, but he is against additional and unmotivated
expenses on the maintenance of Web resource, and also he does not wish to
penetrate into additional technical details.
   You know that any Web publisher has in mind
a satisfaction of a certain need of Web visitors. The main problem is to detect
what need exactly may be satisfied by the given Web resource.
   NL based engine will provide a
query-answering session with both any Web publisher and any Web visitor, using
their professional or/and everyday slang.   
As a result Web resource’s
content and Web visitor’s specification are represented the same semantic
marked syntax, and NL based engine will get an opportunity to find for the
visitor an appropriate Web resource. If except a need description Web publisher
provides a way of this need satisfaction, NL based  enghine will get an opportunity to meet
Web visitor’s need directly or to compose a new way of the given need
satisfactions using available need-resources. 
   In other words, I mean that Web publishers
will rewrite (in the scope of the query-answering session) their published information
in the new specific form (or input a description of certain need’s
satisfaction) that includes all necessary constructive elements including
documents and audio/video data in the corresponding places of the new
presentation of their Web resource. 
   As a result Web visitor will be
relieved of necessity to look through Web content in search of relevant
information. He will deal, mainly, with Web of needs. System engine will
interview Web visitor and find or generate the actual way of the given need
satisfaction. Herewith, system engine will demonstrate to the customer only those documents
and audio/video resources, which are related to the found way of the
given need satisfaction.
   Optional,
Internet provider supplies Web of needs in form of configurations ordered by the customer that will allow to
the governments to regulate the information flow. 
   Neither Web publisher nor Web visitor will be obliged to know something
else except the particularities of their needs. They will be interacting with
Web of needs using their professional slang. 
   With the purpose of
realization of mentioned above possibilities in Need Language I have formalized
the representation of domain knowledge and defined both commonsense knowledge
and commonsense reasoning.
I need your opinion, your advice, your help and your cooperation.
All the best,
A.Abramovich