[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>, "'Thomas B. Passin'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:30:25 -0600
That's the semantic drift problem. It's a known. You
Trust But Verify where you get out-of-bounds answer.
The issue is locality and communication among locales.
See prior post about separation of ontology and schema.
I'm sitting here trying to finish an article for a magazine
on semantic web issues to examine operational issues of
the semantic web. As I've said before, anyone who thinks
this gets turned on without a lot of testing, and yes,
continuous testing, is smoking dope. Machine communications
are actually less precise than human communications but a
lot faster and that is a danger.
A local Chinese national tells me the Chinese symbol for
entropy combines the symbols for business and fire. While
the cheerleaders for the semantic web cheer loudly, there are also
soft whispers of caution from the gallery. A lot of
games have to be played in a season to get a national champion.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Bill dehOra [mailto:BdehOra@interx.com]
I wonder then if there isn't a possibility of diluting the shared meaning as
the graph distance between the two interest_rate's grows? That is with
enough distance, the terms are not at all equivalent despite the linking.
The possibility of the semantic web equivalent of chinese whispers would be
a reasonably serious problem. Does anyone have an example of that?