Re: First Order Logic and Semantic Web RE: NPR, Godel, Semantic W eb

[Joel Rees <rees@server.mediafusion.co.jp>]

Hi, Jeff,

[clipped]

> Not to worry. Never stopped me.

<grin/>Thanks for them kind words.

[clipped]
> Even one party systems have their detractors, open or otherwise. What
would
> be more worrying is a system by a stereotypes coerces others into
supporting
> it through unchecked feedback loops. How one would spot such loops seems
> worthy of a doctoral thesis.

My biggest worry (in this connection, at least) is not so much spotting them
as stopping them. MS as a social phenomenon is a great example of a feedback
loop. Must of us have spotted the loop, but it has such a momentum that we
have trouble stopping it, even if Bill weren't busy hard-selling the
illusion in India and other places where they might not have spotted it yet.

Is there a way to build SW so that a semantic loop cannot be built without
automatically incorporating some defusing devise that can be popped by any
random surfer that finds it?

[clipped]

> Unlike the real world, not everybody can be made to believe the same
thing,
> or support the same agenda. Unless your a member of a Politburo, that is
> (but that's phony unanimity).

<jest>Has there been a single party system in all of history that has not
been a phony unanimity? </jest>

[clipped]
> > Icckkk. Sorry. That's not a question. Uhmm. Is watching
> > Scurvivor part of
> > your job, or does a co-worker insist on watching it? (If you avoid the
> > ad-rags, I assume you are not watching it voluntarily.)
>
> Office politcking has all the element of Survivor, not that I ever watched
> the show :-)

<big-chuckle/>
<nod-of-agreement/>

[clipped]

> Comes down to the question of acceding authority: how's it done? How do
you
> demand a recall? Or is authority something that can be determined
> deterministically? I think no matter how you slice it, you're going to
have
> competing authorities, then what happens when my chosen authority is
> different from yours? How do you automate negotiation between belief
> systems? Aaaackk. Hurts my head.
>
> Len's postulate that SW can only operate in narrowly scoped domains with
> clear authority seems a logical conclusion.

Can SW be defined so that it prevents attempts to apply it beyond narrowly
scoped domains? Many of my neighbors are going to be very anxious to try to
apply it to very broad domains, and Bill is going to be all too happy to
accommodate them (or to set up the smoke and mirrors so they think he has).

> > > This all gets back to checks and balances. This can't be ad hoc.
> >
> > If it can't be ad hoc, how does the SW community propose to
> > do checks and
> > balances?
> >
>
> Good question. Even in narrowly scoped domains, you're going to have
> contention against the established authority. Then the domain splinters?
> This echoes back to the original topic: the world is not wholly
> deterministic, neither can be SW.
>
> > Self-training agents? Auto-adjusting stereotypes?
>
> Yes, eventually. Probably won't live to see it.

That's what I'm worried about.

> > I like that metaphor. Does any interactive fiction of the
> > complexity of War and Peace exist yet?
> >
>
> Dunno, I play chess. Still haven't explored all the possible moves yet,
but
> must be getting there by now.

Don't play chess myself. Well, sometimes when I'm feeling masochistic.
Trying to teach my five-year old boy the basic rules on gnu's chess.

Do you play go? Shogi?

[clipped]

Joel Rees

============================XML as Best Solution===
Joel Rees                          リース　ジョエル
Media Fusion Co.,Ltd.  株式会社メディアフュージョン
Amagasaki  TEL 81-6-6415-2560    FAX 81-6-6415-2556
    Tokyo　TEL 81-3-3516-2566  　FAX 81-3-3516-2567
                       http://www.mediafusion.co.jp
---------------------------------------------------
                                         Programmer
===================================================