- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:59:45 -0600
- To: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On 2010-01-15, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> It's not that simple. > > My very point is that too. Thus if you want to get things done at > all, you have to *make* it simple. By brute force if need be. Quite, but when 'you' is a committee, this takes time and always results in compromise. The RDF literal-typing structure, for example, is one of the simplest designs we considered. I did not keep an accurate count of the number of alternatives we considered and rejected, but I know I wrote 13 different versions of the semantics for datatyping. It took longer to get it that simple than it takes to make a baby. > > My relapse into an assassination fantasy was only half a joke, there. > >> And the semantics were very clear from the beginning. We weren't in >> a confused muddle or anything like that. But the devil, as they >> say, is in the details. > > I know very well. What I'm saying, to hell with that particular > devil. It don't need no stinkin axiomatic semantics. It doesnt have an axiomatic semantics, it has a (very simple) model- theoretic semantics. > Sure, that'll royally fuck everything up if you try to reason on top > of hte thing. But then, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and > those folks will be able to retreat into their own, purer-than-pure > trenches/namespaces when they want to. Well, sorry, but it is happening soon, in fact its happening right now. Without at least some reasoning there is no point in having a semantic web at all. > >> The semantics of RDF, as defined in the spec, are about as >> "standard" as you could wish for. They are based on ideas which >> have been textbook stuff since the 1930s. > > As far as description logics go, let's say 50's to 70's. It isn't a description logic, its basic FOL. With a slight tweak to conform to Common Logic, I will admit, but that can be traced back to about 1880. > I do know what we're talking about. The problem is more about why > people talk so much about it. In my mind silence translates into > understanding of the semantics. More talk about them then translates > into possible refined semantics, and/or even discord over the base > semantics. > >> If anything, we may have erred by not being more imagiative, IMO. > > In fact much agreed. > >> Part of our problem here is that we aren't consolidating an >> existing body of expertise. Rather, we are in the strange position >> of needing to define the standard to be used in a new technology >> which cannot even come into existence until the standard is created >> and widely accepted. Maybe we shouldn't refer to them as 'standards'. > > Which is precisely why I'd go with the "profane" version, first. > Simply don't aim at any specific solution, but let the market > decide, at least at first. As always in the online world, adoption > comes first. Good standards of behavior come second or third, if > ever. Really the only thing you can do is to point the way a little > bit, always using technical means only. Well, I basically agree, but you have to give the users *somethjing* to get things up and running at all. And like Ive said on other messages, its hard to think of a descriptive formalism that has less in it than RDF has. > > I mean, the rooster's gonna run. You can pinch it, gun it down or > let it roost. Any which way, you're gonna come up with chicks or one > dissapointing capon. I'd choose the chicks no matter the color. You've lost me here. Pat > -- > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front > +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Saturday, 16 January 2010 07:00:48 UTC