On 6/18/11 7:13 AM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
HS: "I gave a talk on the philosophy of the Social Web if you are
interested."
http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083
For the specifics of TBL's motto, "the web as a philosophical
engineering", see Harry's article:
http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v07n2_Computers_04.aspx
Some interesting assertions: "we are not analyzing a world, we are
building it. We are not experimental philosophers, we are
philosophical engineers." ; "online intelligence is generated through
complex causal interaction in an extended brain-body-environment
system"; "The Web is ...the creation and evolution of external
representations in a universal information space".
I'd extend: if the the world wide web is "a universal information
space", the semantic/ontological web is a universal knowledge space.
And we need avoid confusing four fields: philosophical engineering,
philosophy of engineering, engineering philosophy, and engineering of
philosophy.
Azamat,
Yes!
Basically we have:
1. Data Space
2. Information Space
3. Knowledge Space.
Trouble is that the WWW was rolled out as follows:
1. Information Space
2. Data Space -- we are trying to sort this out right now by decoupling
Linked Data from Linked Documents, unobtrusively
3. Knowledge Space -- where the power reasoning, rules, and description
logics will ultimately shine.
The bigger trouble is conflation, there are so many starting points for
developers, commentators, and users that one way or the other the
following happen:
1. Data, Information, and Knowledge become conflated
2. Names and Addresses become conflated
3. Data Definition and Data Description become conflated
4. Syntax and Semantics become conflated -- RDF (markup language for
describing things) as sole mechanism for graph based data representation
is exhibit #1 re. this anomaly.
Like inflation, conflation ultimately destroys value :-)
Kingsley
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Henry Story <mailto:henry.st...@bblfish.net>
*To:* adasal <mailto:adam.salt...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* Lin Clark <mailto:lin.w.cl...@gmail.com> ; Bjoern Hoehrmann
<mailto:derhoe...@gmx.net> ; Linked Data community
<mailto:public-lod@w3.org> ; Semantic Web
<mailto:semantic-...@w3.org>
*Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2011 8:48 PM
*Subject:* Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful
On 17 Jun 2011, at 19:27, adasal wrote:
That said the hacker is a various beast,
Indeed, hackers are not angels. But the people on this list should
get back to hacking or work together with open source projects to
get initial minimal working pieces embedded there. WebID is one;
foaf is another, pingback, access control, ...
Get the really simple pieces working.
and I wonder if this sort of thing can really be addressed
without overarching political/ethical/idealogical concerns. It's
tough.
It all fits together really nicely. I gave a talk on the
philosophy of the Social Web if you are interested.
http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083
Hackers tend to be engineers with a political attitude, so they
are more receptive to the bigger picture. But solving the big
picture problem should have an easy entry cost if we want to get
it going.
I talked to the BBC but they have limited themselves to what they
will do in the Social Web space as far as profile hosting goes.
Again, I'd start small. Facebook started in universities not that
long ago.
Henry
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
