[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Uche Ogbuji scripsit:
> > You don't. You merely need some way of distinguishing assertions about
> > the doctor from assertions about *documents* that are about the doctor.
>
> Well, this is the crux of it. I strongly disagree with you here, and
> everything else we're saying on this matter is just a variation on this
> disagreement.
Yes indeedy. I don't see how you can be so blind, and you don't see how
I can be so deaf. :-)
> Perhaps one problem is that I'm not really into the Semantic Web. I basically
> use RDF as a sort of mulidimentsional DBMS (sort of a more flexible Pick). I
Mulish and demented indeed!
> I have never seen the problems that TM folks talk about in "map/territory"
> speeches in individual systems. Nor have I seen such problems when connecting
> separately designed systems.
The trick is to make separately designed systems that combine by themselves.
Of course TMs can't quite do that either, since there are many plausible
subject-indicating resources for Shakespeare (and some not so good, like
the one I posted).
> I'm certainly not going to put myself through a model
> as complex as that of TM,. I just can't find that it's demonstrably
> necessary.
I agree. But I think RDF needs to adopt certain TM insights.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
"One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists
came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
Try hanging up and phoning in again.'" --Beverly Erlebacher
|
