[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
i can't possibly put all my understanding of this problem succintly
enough for a short email, but here are a few pointers to my ideas:
my basic point is that owl et al are inadequate as a basic principle for
semantic anything. why? well like roger alluded to in the english
language comments - what makes evenly poorly composed english
understandable? part of the answer is word roles - verbs are not just a
syntactic device, they are semantically very different to nouns. if i
simply give you the words "boy" and "ball" you have very little
information. if i add to that word list a verb - "throws" you can start
to derive meaning. in document terms "order" "goods" "buy" has
meaning... "order" "goods" lacks purpose (unless you accept order as a
verb). things like ebxml and uml try to address this and for my money an
extension of this idea to be the fundamental of the semantic web is
essential. the we can say things like "this message is buying goods -
maybe it's an order".
next there's the problem of recognition - i'm happy that a neural net is
probably the only way to do this in a general sense. this implies
training (constantly) - but then kids need school too and the brain is
the most sophisticated and complex device we know. my view is that if
the most complex and competent device in the known universe requires
significant training to do things, then there's some sort of biblical
arrogance in our assumption that we can simply write down some rules and
build a device that works as well.
i'd be very interested to know if anyone on this list has tried using
neural nets rather than schemas to classify xml documents and/or if
anyone is interested in setting up some experiments to try it out.
and one final point - back to the sum is greater than the whole. i was
thinking about this in terms of an element algebra. group theory defines
a group by operations (verbs :) ) that when applied to members of the
group (usually, but i guess not necessarily, 2 members - could be
ternary operators) result in a member of the group. integer + integer =>
integer. but if you have a group member you have no way of knowing if it
was derived by operation (and there may be an infinite number of
contruction operations), which one, or does it just exist in it's own
right. the number 4 as an integer has different properties to the
numbers 1 and 3, but can be constructed from them. if i have a bunch of
logs or steel bars they could be the parts for a bridge or a scaffold or
ladder etc. the construction again has some meaning beyond the parts.
back to <>s. our scientific culture is deconstructive (break it down to
find the meaning) while our engineering is constructive (put it together
to make something) and we are creatures of action (use the things we
make to do something) all the time fighting dS/dt > 0 (trying to create
order from chaos).
my answer to your question roger is in principle yes, but we need xml
technologies in all 4 areas above to do it.
rick
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>And the fact of trading (that these components are created and
>shared by some network of traders "dynamically assembled by
>one system and shipped to another where the assembly is
>dynamically understood") infers that some common maps already
>exist, aka, the upper level enterprise/market ontology.
>
>Intentionality is the impetus of ontology.
>
>No matter how simple the intent is, it will shape the
>understanding. It is a centrality and may be a transient
>or permanent attractor that creates meaning.
>
>len
>
>
>From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
>
>From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
>
>
>
>>I assume that this question has as its impetus ...
>>
>>
>
>Here's my motivation for the question: in a large, complex Enterprise you
>may know the kinds of "things" that need to be moved around (e.g., Book,
>BookCover, etc) but you don't have a-priori knowledge of the specific
>transactions that will be needed.
>
>So, is it feasible to simply declare a bunch of components (that everyone
>understands), which may be dynamically assembled by one system and shipped
>to another system where the assembly is dynamically understood.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
>!DSPAM:41e58986150941861020313!
>
>
>
begin:vcard
fn:Rick Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick
email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
