- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:54:45 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> writes: > / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say: > | Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> writes: . . . > | This seems to me the crux -- on what basis do you assert they are > | inconsistent? > > I'm appealing to your experience. Given two assertions: > > http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is_a "Hoary Marmot" > http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is_a "web page" > > Your undertanding of what it means to be a Hoary Marmot (in particular > that all such things belong to each of the following classes of > things: marmots, rodents, gnawing animals, placental mammals, > eutherian mammals, mammals, vertibrates, craniates, chordates, > animals, organisms, living things, animate things, and physical > objects) will lead you to conclude that those assertions are > inconsistent. Ah, I see I had misunderstood what you were saying was inconsistent with what. I agree that I can see that the two assertions above are inconsistent with one another, and I'm prepared to stipulate that with enough OWL and inference to hand a machine could too. What I _thought_ you had meant was that http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is_a "web page" was _internally_ inconsistent. I actually have come to believe that, on the contrary, we'd be better off if we could reliably (and automatically) conclude that http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Hoary_Marmot is_a "Hoary Marmot" is internally inconsistent, but that's a subject for another and longer posting. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 21:54:48 UTC