[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: NPR, Godel, Semantic Web
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:14:18 -0500
The semantic web doesn't trip on godel or
incompleteness. It trips on authority.
No one sensible has said that Prolog-style
knowledge bases don't work. They do. They
are just expensive to build (to make complete
in the sense that all terms have definitions,
and that all definitions that need to be closed
are), to maintain (hard to keep any system
of definitions bounded), and conflicts in
authoritative definitions (you say tomato i say tomato)
have to be resolved. Then you get to the
really expensive part: the logic layer.
I expect money to be made there.
The problem of the semantic web isn't
mathematical; it is operational. "And
now what will you pay for the ginzu knife?
But wait, there's more!!" We will need a
standard that says something about the QOS
of the metadata and its handlers. That is
why we talked golems last year, just trying
to get an understanding of the qualities
we need for the software that supports this.
Really folks. Rolling back ten years
and grabbing yetAnotherNicheFrom the
history of compsci isn't a big NEXT
STEP (hear the W3C trumpets, see
the garlanded hero, the whisperer,
the dogs, the children, the triumph).
It is just another engineering task.
Metadata systems have their uses. They
just cost, require domain expertise,
and *a common system* for interoperation.
Actually, that last bit is ALL I got
from the Scientific American article:
this is another standards effort to
declare another common system to be
tied to the web: adding knowledge
bases to hypermedia. So, 1985?
The crockness of it isn't the doability;
it is the need to do it now. Good
topic for research, good topic for
discussion; perhaps not the initiative
by which all other tasks before the
W3C et al should be measured or circumscribed.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:49 AM
To: Robert C. Lyons; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: NPR, Godel, Semantic Web
At 10:31 AM 5/7/01 -0400, Robert C. Lyons wrote:
>For a simple explanation of Godel's Theorem, see
>Here's a site that describes a couple of "common but fallacious
>conclusions" that people make from the theorem:
Since a lot of what the Semantic Web proposes to do is precisely "deduction
from axioms", I suspect these claims don't fall into the "common but
fallacious conclusions" area.
If anyone knows where they do fall, I'd love to hear it.