Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and Linked Data

Hi Chris,

Your assessment is perfectly reasonable. I was thrown off by the  
question you initially asked:

> Question 3: Depending on the answer to question 1, is it correct   
> to use owl:sameAs [6] to state that http://www.w3.org/People/ 
> Berners-Lee/ card#i and http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tim_Berners-Lee  
> refer to the same  thing as it is done in Tim's profile.

Given that you didn't intend the sense of "correct" that I thought  
(recall that I was guessing, from context, which sense of correct you  
meant in your question), which sense of "correct" did you mean? Or to  
phrase it another way, if one were to answer the question "no", what  
sort of evidence would you accept to support that answer.

This isn't a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of communication. I  
really don't know what you are asking. Another way to accomplish the  
communication would be to rephrase the question without using the  
word "correct".

I don't mean to suggest you are obligated to clarify this for me.  
However, I am curious to know what you were asking, so if you do, I  
will be appreciative.

-Alan



On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:55 AM, Chris Bizer wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> I'm not a philosopher, but I have the feeling that the concept  
> "correct" in a sence of matching reality does not really apply to  
> the Semantic Web setting.
>
> We are talking about machines that are supposed to process data  
> from different sources. There is no such thing as "reality" for a  
> machine. For the machine there is only data! (or knowledge if you  
> prefer this term)
>
> Therefore the question for the machine is: Should it trust a  
> specific piece of data or not? Or more precisely how can it assess  
> the quality of the data to a point where it matches the quality  
> requirements of the user (human).
>
> There are lots of different heuristics that a machine can apply to  
> assess information quality, including content-based, context-based,  
> rating-based heuristics.
>
> For more details than you ever wanted to hear, please refer to my  
> PhD thesis titeld "Quality-driven Information Filtering in the  
> Context of Web-based Information System" http://sites.wiwiss.fu- 
> berlin.de/suhl/bizer/pub/DisertationChrisBizer.pdf
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Bizer
> Freie Universität Berlin
> +49 30 838 54057
> chris@bizer.de
> www.bizer.de
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Ruttenberg"  
> <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
> Cc: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>; <www-tag@w3.org>; "SW-forum  
> Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "Linking Open Data" <linking-open- 
> data@simile.mit.edu>; "Jonathan A Rees" <jar@mumble.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 4:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and  
> Linked Data
>
>
>> On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 14:43 +0200, Chris Bizer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Question 3: Depending on the answer to question 1, is it  
>>>> correct  to use
>>>> owl:sameAs [6] to state that http://www.w3.org/People/Berners- 
>>>> Lee/ card#i and
>>>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tim_Berners-Lee refer to the same   
>>>> thing as it is
>>>> done in Tim's profile.
>>>
>>> Yes...
>>>
>>> That's sort of a circular question. It's correct because Tim  
>>> says  it's correct, and he owns that name.
>>
>> That's not the usual sense of "correct". In this context, I  
>> believe  that the wordnet sense of "correct" that is intended is
>> "free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth"
>>
>> Or Wikipedia: "In everyday use, the correctness of a statement is  
>> determined by whether or not it matches reality. People can think  
>> a statement is correct and be wrong."
>>
>> If I had a profile that said, in effect, that I was president of  
>> the United States, then that would be incorrect regardless of  
>> whether I  owned the name (I am taking the "owned name" that you  
>> are referring  to to be http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ 
>> card#i since that's the  only name in the vicinity that Tim could  
>> correctly claim to be owned  by him).
>>
>> If I'm using the wrong sense of "correct", perhaps you could  
>> provide  me a definition of "correct" by which I could understand  
>> your claim.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Alan
>

Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 12:28:50 UTC