- From: ben syverson <w3@likn.org>
- Date: 2006年2月23日 15:14:38 -0600
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-Id: <DB9773F7-5BDE-464D-88FE-E682749584CA@likn.org>
On Feb 23, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > Now -- on the notion of absolute truth? No, not at all. No one says > msg2231 is true just because it's on the web. If the full URI is > http://example.com/msg2231 then some people might say that Example > Corporation is claiming msg2231, but I don't think they'd even win > that > argument. The entities that can speak on the web -- that can be > said to > claim something -- are web pages. The problem comes with the assertions within http://example.com/ msg2231. If msg2231 asserts: <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://example.org/person"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf- schema#Resource" /> </rdfs:Class> The reasoner has no choice but to believe that statement, unless it runs up against an ontological constraint, right? That's what I mean by absolute truth. If you give a reasoner a set of assertions, it must assume them to be true unless it conflicts with the related ontology. On the web, this is a ridiculous assumption. It makes every reasoner gullible. It would be better if every single assertion was implicitly reified by its containing URI, with the *option* of attaching even more metadata to the statement-about-a-statement (ie, which individual or entity in particular is making these assertions, when they were made, etc). Then the reasoner would be able to parse many identical assertions, and rate their validity based on any number of factors. For instance, you could ask such a reasoner (although probably not in English): "do French people believe that Jerry Lewis is funny?" Even with no such attributes attached to a statement, the results of any query you make could be qualified based on their popularity. Or maybe I'm way off... Anyone? - ben syverson likn
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 21:14:52 UTC