Re: Issue-57

I think there is one thing that we all should agree. That is: neither side
is going to convince or accept the other side.

But the thing is: these two views are not mutually exclusive. One view
actually subsumes the other. Those view/practice of not caring for
IR/httpRange-14 does not exclude those who insist on IR/httpRange-14. The
latter community can, in fact, grow out of a world built upon the former
viewpoint. They can develop an ontology of IR and assert their dataset
with this ontology, and their use of URI will adhere to httpRange-14.

But the inverse cannot be held. The view of latter group entails a smaller
universe. A web architecture based on the latter view will label the
former's statement as "false", their authors "irresponsible", and their
resources "illegal".

The question that TAG should answer, in fact, is not which viewpoint is
right. (We know there would not be answer to it.) Rather, it should be:
should we design the web architecture be in such that it foresters
diversity or in such that it suits to someone's preference?

Xiaoshu Wang

On 6/15/11 5:08 PM, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

>Hi Alan,
>
>I think we've played this out enough to expose the differing viewpoints
>that we're espousing.  I don't think further debate would add much.
>However, I do think it would be useful to the community at some point to
>coherently capture these views, and the rationale for each, together in
>one place, to facilitate analysis by others.  Perhaps we could
>collaborate on such a document at some point.
>
>Best wishes,
>David
>
>
>On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 07:39 +0100, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 04:25 +0100, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:39 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
>>wrote:
>> > [ skipping some points that are not worth debating ]
>> >> > But AFAICT, that disjointness assertion is *not*
>> >> > expressed in the formal FOAF ontology.  So I do not think it is
>>fair to
>> >> > claim that *Richard's* data is contradictory or does not support
>> >> > inference just because it fails to assume an additional assertion
>>that
>> >> > the FOAF ontology did *not* make, but *you* think it should have
>>made or
>> >> > meant to make.
>> >>
>> >> You are like the billionaire who, on being called out for not paying
>> >> taxes, says that no laws were broken because every tax loophole was a
>> >> legitimate loophole. Yet they have violated the social contract
>> >> nonetheless. And the reaction is not to say, "no, the social contract
>> >> is not to pay your share, it is to listen to exactly what the lawyers
>> >> say".  The reaction is to close the loopholes.
>> >
>> > Great rhetoric!  But there's a key difference: semantic web technology
>> > is about enabling *machine* processing -- not human -- and machines
>> > cannot be expected to understand intent.
>> 
>> No question about that. But the machines are our servants. I expect
>> *you* to recognize intent and not suggest that it be subverted. You
>> keep on insisting that bugs are features because of this.
>> 
>> >> > There are two reasons why I do not think that such informal
>>comments
>> >> > should be used in assessing whether a dataset is formally
>>consistent.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. They cannot be machine processed, and thus any requirement that
>>they
>> >> > be considered would not scale well.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. Different users will interpret them differently, and this would
>>lead
>> >> > to confusion and interoperability problems.
>> >>
>> >> They aren't being used to assess whether the dataset is formally
>> >> consistent. They are being used to assess whether the dataset is
>> >> consistent. We try to make the former match the latter, not say the
>> >> latter is irrelevant.
>> >
>> > But as I've pointed out, whether the dataset is consistent with the
>>real
>> > world is *irrelevant* if it is useful to applications.  See myth #4:
>> > http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#myth4
>> >
>> > [ . . . ]
>> >> You continue to insist that the axioms trump the intent.
>> >
>> > Correct!  For machine processing, the axioms trump the intent!  Yes!
>>We
>> > have communicated successfully!
>> 
>> No, I don't think so.  The axioms determine what the reasoners do, not
>> the intent, but the design goal is to achieve the intent. When the
>> reasoners don't do as intended we consider it a bug, and we fix the
>> axioms.
>> 
>> >> It's as if
>> >> you were having a conversation but insisting on not understanding
>>what
>> >> anybody says because you happen to only have an abridged dictionary
>>on
>> >> hand.
>> >
>> > No, it's as if my *machine* were having a conversation but only
>>happens
>> > to understand an abridged dictionary.  Semantic web technology is to
>> > enable *machine* processing.
>> 
>> Do you think I am missing that. But is the machine processing supposed
>> to achieve something? Are the answers it gets ever wrong? You are
>> elevation the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. Your
>> "mythbusting" reads as instruction to me instead of teaching about
>> reasoners.
>> 
>> -Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > David Booth, Ph.D.
>> > http://dbooth.org/
>> >
>> > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
>>necessarily
>> > reflect those of his employer.
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>David Booth, Ph.D.
>http://dbooth.org/
>
>Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>reflect those of his employer.
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 01:41:16 UTC