Lists Home |
Date Index |
Once denoted, ask the humans who own the URIs.
If they don't resolve it, the conflict IS information.
Consider the identity/privacy problems of the web in
general. If there were one authoritative profile
for a human using the system, should that profile
be owned by the server owner, or by the human that
it profiles? If the profile has some official
standing such as might be found in a credit record,
shouldn't the person so named and credentialed be
able to challenge it? Say an author owns an article and finds
it being linked to by sites that are not topically
related. Should the author have the right to refuse
The feedback element of this system, the system that
interacts with this system intelligently is the human.
While semantic webs are a neat way to index and discover
relationships, intelligent elements have the means and
motive to refuse them. It should be adequate to
create a system that denotes that multiple senses
exist for some term, even discover that these senses
are not partial differences, but opposites, then
message the owners to inform them of the conflicts.
If they wish to resolve them, means can be provided.
If not, c'est vrai.
Agents that negotiate on behalf of their owners
are trained by the owner to recognize and report
a non-negotiable conflict. A negotiable conflict
is not a conflict of meaning but of values. A
conflict of meaning is an error of identity. The
URI bifurcated or was assigned erroenously.
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Do you need to resolve the difference or denote the difference?
Beginning by denoting the difference in an efficient and elegant way would
be fine. At least, this would become explicit.
>How to get access to the ontology behind an RDF description? Where is it
>located where in an RDF fragment? How do I get the link to fetch such
Access is easy is the URI resolves to the location of the ontology. If
not, you search. If you search, you are back to the Shannon dilemma of
having sufficient or insufficient means to choose.
Why do topics in mail lists tend over time to not
reflect the actual contents of the particular emails? Think
about the debate some months back on the meaning of 'resource'
in web architecture. Even something that dominating as a
keyword has a very nebulous meaning. That is something
of what interests me because it demonstrates that no matter how
complete the ontology or how high the frequency of the term,
the humans will drift away from it and topical based tracking will get
Very good point.