Message
From: Bijan Parsia
To: Shi, Xuan
Cc: 'public-sws-ig (AT) w3 (DOT) org '; 'jeff (AT) inf (DOT) ed.ac.uk '
Sent: 11/23/05 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE:
[fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)
Nov 22, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Shi, Xuan wrote:
I'd like to make clear about my statement regarding XML, RDF/WL,
semantic
Web, etc. XML is based on a Tree model while RDF is based on a graphic
model
originated from the AI domain. Thus it's not easy for XML people to
understand RDF tripples.
[snip]
It's clarifying, but it just underscores the silliness (sorry for the
bluntness) of the argument. Perhaps, "thinness" would be a better word.
I mean, what exactly is driving your "thus"? Graphic vs. Tree? (can't
trees be visualized?) that something *originated* "in the AI domain"
(but you offer no substantive analysis of the troublesome features)?
And what happened to the problems of logic(s)?
well, mailing lists, y'know.
Cheers,
Bijan.
To answer your question "And what happened to the problems of logic(s)?",
could you please tell me if SW people agree that there are many other
"semantics" besides logic(s)? If this is true, then the problem of SW
technology is it may ignore many other "semantics" except the logic(s). For
example, "Forest" or "Swamp land" can be defined by different organizations.
The meaning of "road" may be different in Europe from the same concept in
USA. Even in GIS, a "road" is visualized using its center line, and you can
see the problem as many roads have double lanes, or multiple lanes. So a
single center line is problematic. What about a section of the road that
shares multiple road names? How about you define an ontology of color, which
can be defined by different ways, such as RGB, HSB, CMYK, or Hex code, or
just natural name, then is it worthy to use logic(s) to matchmake the same
color in different definition? If you would like to create such a color
ontology using RDF/WL, you may wish to give up due to its complexity and
troublesome or unforseenable possiblities, such as "Aqua" and "Cyan" produce
the same color but not all color defined by RGB, HSB, CMYK can get a name.
if you eventually create such an ontology of color class in RDF/WL, how
many people can understand it? It's a pretty AI game.

Nov 23, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Shi, Xuan wrote:
[snip]
To answer your question "And what happened to the problems of
logic(s)?",
could you please tell me

Hmm. Either you left out a "not", i.e, "To not answer your question",
or you don't understand that answering a question generally involves
*your* answering the questions.

if SW people agree that there are many other
"semantics" besides logic(s)? If this is true, then the problem of SW
technology is it may ignore many other "semantics" except the logic(s).

To sum up Drew's rebuttal in a word: Piffle.

[snip]
if you eventually create such an ontology of color class in
RDF/WL, how
many people can understand it? It's a pretty AI game.

Yay, insult! YU MUST BE RIGHT!!! AI BAD. GAMES BAD. PRETTINESS BAD!!!!
It's all complex and complexity is bad.

Pfft.

The heart of your complaint seems to be that the Semantic web is *not*
based on magic pixie dust. That, to me, is a good thing.

Cheers,
Bijan.