[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
> >> Wow. This is where I really have to wonder if OWL is Karl Popper's
> >> revenge on the world, a naive view of useful information as a
> >> collection of facts, "objective knowledge".
> >
> >Revenge? Is this a problem? :-)
>
> It is indeed a problem if you don't share the philosophy of knowledge
> underlying this technology.
I doubt whether there are even two people that share the same definition of
the word knowledge, let alone a philosophy. Fortunately you don't have to
share any underlying philosophy to be able to use a technology.
> >Indeed it is common practice to informally refer to a particular
> >collection of triples as a "knowledge base"
>
> People even give presentations on "knowledge technology" and audiences
> listen. I don't know whether the problem lies with the speakers or the
> audience, but I try hard to avoid such conversation and consider it
> meaningless if not dangerous when I encounter it.
I'm not sure about conversation, but technologies are usually pretty
meaningless and possibly dangerous, until you have an immediate need for
them.
> >I expect that any statement that is strictly limited to elements and
> >attributes has already been made, or else is a rehash of another
> >statement that has already been made, probably originating in the XML
> >1.0 rec itself modulo some issues with what really is UNICODE etc...
>
> >From a knowledge technologist's perspective, perhaps. I don't think
> conversation on using markup has even really gotten started, though, and
> there's certainly plenty of room for tools development that's barely
> been expored.
>
> Given the choice of conversations, I'll stick to the strange little
> world of characters and markup rather than striving to build global
> meaning.
Did someone mention unicode?
Cheers,
Danny.
|
