Re: URIQA thwarted by context problems?

Hi Phil, i take the liberty of replying since we've actually studied CBD 
like structures (the RDFN in www.dbin.org semantic web p2p) and they are 
in fact what makes the whole thing in a sense provingly scalable.

The point Ogbouji was making was what basically all agree upon, tryng to 
do real semantic matching automatically is a lost cause. So .. when one 
asks for a CBD discovers "new information" it refers to "new annottions 
made using existing, shared ontologies". If the ontologies are unknown 
then.. i guess a savy agent will ignore those or ignore the source 
alltogether.

So, given that there is no intention nor need for uriqua to have to 
solve the millenium old problem of AI, I believe the term bootstrapping 
is at least in a sense correct and that is what we argue at the 
beginning of the paper in the homepage at our site, CBDlike have a very 
limited computational cost and can be considered as the "standard 
question to ask" the "standard questions that anyone is willing to 
answer" (becouse you cant really say "i am open for arbitrary queries" 
without opening your computer to easy denial of services).

Phil Dawes wrote:

>Hi Patrick,
>
>I'm afraid that the more work I do with rdf, the more I'm having
>problems seeing URIQA working as a mechanism for bootstrapping the
>semantic web.
>
>The main problem I think is that when discovering new information,
>people are always required to sort out context (a point made by Uche
>Ogbuji on the rdf-interest list recently).
>  
>

Received on Sunday, 10 October 2004 01:27:45 UTC