On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 23:05 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple
> as this. Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male
> from female dogs. One simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender,
> and there is a lot that can be s
On 6/20/11 14:01 , Danny Ayers wrote:
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story wrote:
Ok. So you need to give each of your dogs and cats a webid enabled RDFID chip
To inject a little reality: Sashapooch has got an embedded RFID (not
yet RDFID!) tag, not sure but I think it became Italian law.
Basil
On 19 June 2011 22:10, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[snip]
> Personally, I just don't loose sleep over schema.org, its a great
> contribution that ultimately simplifies comprehension of the Data Space
> dimension. Remember, we humans don't do well with prevention, we prefer cure
> (via pills ideally)
Point taken, I forget where I am sometimes, will try harder. My apologies.
On 19 June 2011 21:06, Nathan wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>>
>> I feel very guilty being in threads like this. Shit fuck smarter people
>> than
>> me.
>
> Just minor, and I can hardly talk as I swear most often in differen
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story wrote:
> Ok. So you need to give each of your dogs and cats a webid enabled RDFID chip
To inject a little reality: Sashapooch has got an embedded RFID (not
yet RDFID!) tag, not sure but I think it became Italian law.
Basilhound being a bit older, before this st
On 20 June 2011 10:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
>
> The URI :-)
The mythical URI, perfect.
--
http://danny.ayers.name
On 6/20/11 1:48 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
Myers Briggs is based on the Jungian analysis of mythology and
personality types, with a few additions. Myths being public dreams,
and dreams being private myths.
The personality types are the lens from which we interpret the inner
and outer universal
On 6/20/11 10:39 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 20 Jun 2011, at 10:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
The URI :-)
Perhaps we should write it
URi
to get a bit of Apple magic. Pronounced your-eye,
Neat
On 20 Jun 2011, at 10:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
>
> The URI :-)
Perhaps we should write it
URi
to get a bit of Apple magic. Pronounced your-eye, it does indeed have this
you<-->i tensio
On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
The URI :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Thanks a 10^6 ! Been looking for some good resources on the subject for a
while.
Mr. Yrjänä Rankka
On Jun 20, 2011, at 0:52, John Erickson wrote:
> Henry Story asked...
>
>> Perhaps a more scientific way to express this is within the language of
>> self-organising systems. There is a lot o
On 20 Jun 2011, at 02:48, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Jun 2011, at 20:15, Danny Ayers wrote:
>>
>>> Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
>>> think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
>>> y
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2011, at 20:15, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>> Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
>> think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
>> your sails it's very different. These things don't really allo
+1 to Netlogo!
Regards,
Dave
On Jun 19, 2011, at 18:52, John Erickson wrote:
> Henry Story asked...
>
>> Perhaps a more scientific way to express this is within the language of
>> self-organising systems. There is a lot of research there which is relevant
>> to us.
>>
>> http://en.wikipe
Henry Story asked...
> Perhaps a more scientific way to express this is within the language of
> self-organising systems. There is a lot of research there which is relevant
> to us.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_organising_systems
>
> I am a bit new to this area. Any books I must read?
On 6/19/11 6:36 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:58, Nathan wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen as
more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff ba
On 6/19/11 5:56 PM, Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to
listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on
schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this proble
On 6/19/11 2:48 PM, Henry Story wrote:
yes. And since we are working in a self organising system, these applications
have to be designed so that every use grows the value of the network, and
creates incentives for correct data to be published, and maintained.
This is the crux of the matter!
On 6/19/11 2:26 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
"A step too far"?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
"I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and it
would break and
On 6/19/11 1:39 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Er. we use it :-)
The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech.
The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all
dimensions of the Web:
1. Inform
Danny Ayers wrote:
I feel very guilty being in threads like this. Shit fuck smarter people than
me.
Just minor, and I can hardly talk as I swear most often in different
settings, but I am a little surprised to see this language around here.
I quite like having an arena where these words don't
Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
your sails it's very different. These things don't really allow for
change.
Only slightly off-topic, very relevant here, need to pin down WebID in
a sense my dogs c
I thought forever that if we see iniquities we are duty-bound to stand
in the way.
But that don't seem to change anything.
Let the crap rain forth, if you really need to make sense of it the
blokes on this list will do it.
Activity is GOOD, no matter how idiotic.
Decisions made on very differen
On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:44, Danny Ayers wrote:
>>
>> I am of the view that this has been discussed to death, and that any mailing
>> list that discusses this is short of real things to do.
>
> I confess to talking bollocks when I should be coding.
yeah, me too. Though now you folks managed to g
On 19 June 2011 12:37, Henry Story wrote:
>
[snip pat]
> The way to do this is to build applications where this thing matters. So for
> example in the social web we could build
> a slightly more evolved "like" protocol/ontology, which would be
> decentralised for one, but would also allow one t
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:58, Nathan wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Henry Story wrote:
>>> On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>>>
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen
as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on schema.org)
Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to
listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on
schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this problem... (not in
genera
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen as
more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on schema.org) pop up
never knowing there was this problem... (not in general. of course th
>
> particular confusion is so destructive. Unlike the dogs-vs-bitches case,
> the difference between the document and its topic, the thing, is that one is
> ABOUT the other. This is not simply a matter of ignoring some
Could it be exactly the other way around? that documents and things
described
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>
> but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen as
> more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on schema.org) pop up
> never knowing there was this problem... (not in general. of course there is
> in
Exactly,
Things become even clearer when you add in a messenger.
A messenger carried a message about an erupting volcano, to conflate the
message and the subject of the message is to say that a messenger
carried an erupting volcano, which is nonsense.
We've long since known not to conflate t
Absolutely, Pat. Well said.
This is really important.
Can we please stop the madness of confusing things with documents about them
and do what we want to do cleanly and in an efficient way.
Tim
On 2011-06 -19, at 00:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is
On 19 Jun 2011, at 15:26, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There seem to be some axes in the discussion:
>>> publish / consume
>>> long/medium term / shorter term
>>> ideal / pragmatic
>>> Interesting
On 19 Jun 2011, at 12:45, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Hi Hugh,
>
>> By the way, as is well-known I think, a lot of people use and therefore must
>> be happy with URIs that are not Range-14 compliant, such as
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema .
>
> Your general point that there is non-complia
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> "A step too far"?
>>
>> Hi.
>> I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
>> "I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia),
>> and it would break and be unfixable if the s
On 12 Jun 2011, at 14:40, Danny Ayers wrote:
> [snip]
> Aside from containing a different bunch of bits because of the
> encoding, sasha-photo.jpg could be a lossy-compressed version of
> sasha-photo.gif, containing less pixel information yet sharing many
> characteristics.
>
> All ok so far..?
Thanks Henry.
Just to be clear on one point:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 12:44, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>> When we help people publish, it really is tough to engage them long enough
>> to care about the complex issues, and they often get it wrong - I am engaged
>> with quite a few people who are now publ
On 19 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> Er. we use it :-)
>
> The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech.
>
> The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all
> dimensions of the Web:
>
> 1. Information Space
> 2. Data
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
"A step too far"?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
"I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and it
would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #."
Plenty of people saying they can't expres
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:05, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> "A step too far"?
>
> Hi.
> I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
> "I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and
> it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #."
> Plenty of people sayin
Hi Hugh,
> By the way, as is well-known I think, a lot of people use and therefore must
> be happy with URIs that are not Range-14 compliant, such as
> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema .
Your general point that there is non-compliant data out there that
people are still able to make use of
On 6/19/11 7:43 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Point taken Pat but I have been in the same ring as you for many
years, but to progress the Web can't we just take our hands off
the wheel, let it go where it wants. (Not that I have any influence,
and realistically you neither Pat). I'm now just back f
"A step too far"?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
"I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and
it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #."
Plenty of people saying they can't express what they want without it.
And plenty of
On 19 Jun 2011, at 06:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as
> this. Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female
> dogs. One simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a lot
> that can be said
Point taken Pat but I have been in the same ring as you for many
years, but to progress the Web can't we just take our hands off
the wheel, let it go where it wants. (Not that I have any influence,
and realistically you neither Pat). I'm now just back from a
sabbatical, but right now would pro
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as this.
Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female dogs. One
simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a lot that can be
said about dogs without getting into that second topic. Bu
On 17 June 2011 02:46, David Booth wrote:
> I agree with TimBL that it is *good* to distinguish between web pages
> and dogs -- and we should encourage folks to do so -- because doing so
> *does* help applications that need this distinction. But the failure to
> make this distinction does *not*
On 16 June 2011 22:39, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Not only do I not follow your reasoning, I don't even know what it is you are
> saying. The document is a valid *representation* of the car, yes of course.
That's all that's necessary to square this circle.
> But as valid as the car itself? So you thin
Henry Story wrote:
On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Nathan wrote:
You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to a
universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information from
data, such that:
:animalname "sasha" ; :created "2011" .
was read as:
Animal
On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Nathan wrote:
>
> You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to a
> universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information from
> data, such that:
>
> :animalname "sasha" ; :created "2011" .
>
> was read as:
>
> Animal
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Pat's knows something about the history of
what's known to work and what isn't. You ignore that history at the peril of
your ideas simply not working.
well said, although I think we could bracket yourself in that category
too :)
Danny Ayers wrote:
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes wrote:
If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it
describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical
model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You might want
On 6/17/11 1:46 AM, David Booth wrote:
I agree with TimBL that it is*good* to distinguish between web pages
and dogs -- and we should encourage folks to do so -- because doing so
*does* help applications that need this distinction. But the failure to
make this distinction does*not* break the
On 17/06/11 01:46, David Booth wrote:
I agree with TimBL that it is *good* to distinguish between web pages
and dogs -- and we should encourage folks to do so -- because doing so
*does* help applications that need this distinction. But the failure to
make this distinction does *not* break the
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:38 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > There's nothing around HTTP that says it can't be
> > given the same name, and it's a darn sight more useful than a
> > wave-over-there redirect or a random fish/bike association. I c
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
> idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:04 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
> Apologies if my keyboard sneered at you, though comparing an application
> problem to 1% of hr14 at web scale hardly trivializes it; certainly it does
> the opposite. Good luck preserving your mental model if you require
> webmasters to spell
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing
>> it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write
>> classical model theory to accommodate this cla
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has
>> flexibility, it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual
>> thing? To me that sounds like saying, given that mov
In case anyone's not aware, the TAG is working in the area being
discussed on this thread - i.e. on deployment and performance of
linked data nose-following and the possible conflict with current
metadata practices - as its issue 57,
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 . In my analysis
On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> >> I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
>> >> idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
>> >
>> > We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread you will say
>> > what *will* be useful fo
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:07, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >> Google won't scrap schema.org because your thought experiment proved
> that it's not “semantically clear.”
> >
> > Richard, that wasn't the point. You mocked the idea that "semantically
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
> Good luck preserving your mental model if you require webmasters to spell
> Korzybski.
This is an odd comment. It's like saying good luck preserving your model of
TCP if you require network developers to know where Postel worked.
TCP has t
Apologies if my keyboard sneered at you, though comparing an application
problem to 1% of hr14 at web scale hardly trivializes it; certainly it
does the opposite. Good luck preserving your mental model if you
require webmasters to spell Korzybski.
On 6/15/2011 6:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Ju
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes wrote:
> If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing
> it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write
> classical model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error. You
> might want to start by r
On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has flexibility,
> it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual thing? To me
> that sounds like saying, given that movies are projected, it is OK to say
> that fish are bicyc
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
> I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on
> publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to "refer to
> these information resources themselves", making them "unable to talk about
> Web pages
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying
>> or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running
>> it past me again? Bear in mind that I do
On 6/15/11 4:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or
how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it
past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your cla
* [2011-06-14 08:55:09 -0700] Pat Hayes écrit:
] Well, you have got me confused. Are you saying here that it does
] in fact make sense to say that a description of the eiffel tower
] is 356M tall?
I'm just saying that things like this will be published because the
publisher is confused, or mist
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a
burden on publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish
to "refer to these information resources themselves", making them
"unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF".
What about mint
On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes wrote:
> OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying
> or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running
> it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a
> description of somethin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
On 15 Jun 2011, at 11:11, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Another anecdote, I don't remember whom I heard this from: From FOAF data you
> can see that a lot of people say that their homepage is … "Google".
I am not sure this is on-topic anymore
On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:07, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> Google won't scrap schema.org because your thought experiment proved that
>> it's not “semantically clear.”
>
> Richard, that wasn't the point. You mocked the idea that "semantically
> clear" could be defined. I responded with an attempt.
I hav
Another anecdote, I don't remember whom I heard this from: From FOAF data you
can see that a lot of people say that their homepage is … "Google".
Best,
Richard
On 14 Jun 2011, at 22:37, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>
> re
>
> as I was talking about "messy" data, some anecdotes from our work wit
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Alan,
>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 10:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> Define “strictly semantically clear”. Good luck!
>>
>> Why don't we start with the following:
>>
>> Message sender has some statements they want to communicate. They
>> encode
re
as I was talking about "messy" data, some anecdotes from our work with
foaf-search.net:
-Want to see some people and groups that are an owl:Ontology ?
http://www.foaf-search.net/SearchRDFType?type=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl%23Ontology
Thank god everyone using our website eit
On 6/14/11 4:55 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
No, what will happen is that a class of people will arise who*do* understand
http-range-14 (and other issues that are perceived as 'hard') and they will for
a short while be able to earn a living writing (or writing code which
generates) this stuff properl
On 6/14/11 10:07 AM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
You can see a prototype of the PHP library in action on this
conference site:
http://data.dev8d.org/2011/programme/
I'd encourage the community to build more tools for webmasters, not
for the linked data community!
The community should bu
On 6/14/11 9:45 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
re
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:33:47PM -0700, Pat Hayes wrote:
But if you are a semantic inference engine, and you get the dog and its
picture muddled, will you likely generate a lot of nonsensical assertions?
Answer, Yes, you will. Which is the key
Alan,
On 14 Jun 2011, at 10:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> Define “strictly semantically clear”. Good luck!
>
> Why don't we start with the following:
>
> Message sender has some statements they want to communicate. They
> encode their statements into the language. The encoding is sent. The
> rec
On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>
> I'd encourage the community to build more tools for webmasters, not for the
> linked data community!
Well, +1 to that :-)
Pat
>
> --
> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248
>
> You should read the ECS
On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:54 AM, William Waites wrote:
> * [2011-06-13 20:33:47 -0700] Pat Hayes écrit:
>
> ] > So there is some relationship between a description of the Eiffel
> ] > tower and the tower itself. The relationship is akin to similarity in
> ] > a very specific way - they are similar
> Define “strictly semantically clear”. Good luck!
Why don't we start with the following:
Message sender has some statements they want to communicate. They
encode their statements into the language. The encoding is sent. The
receiver examines the the encoding and constructs an understanding
consi
Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
And publishers will start to differenciate between dogs and pictures of dogs as
soon as it provides them added value.
I think in this lies a key issue. Much of my experience of producing
linked data has been anti-climatic. If I was having to justify every
coding hou
On 14 Jun 2011, at 09:45, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> I think special purpose reasoners will play a much bigger role in the
> near future than general purpose reasoners because they perform better with
> big and messy data.
Yes. It's certainly true in the case of the web -- you cannot apply
off-t
* [2011-06-13 20:33:47 -0700] Pat Hayes écrit:
] > So there is some relationship between a description of the Eiffel
] > tower and the tower itself. The relationship is akin to similarity in
] > a very specific way - they are similar enough that someone thought it
] > made sense to write down tha
On 13 Jun 2011, at 22:17, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
> Perhaps what we need to start worrying about is getting some test cases -- or
> a big pile of real (shonky) data to extract useful facts from...
>
> Would it be worth starting a collection of data which makes sense to humans
> but isn't s
re
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:33:47PM -0700, Pat Hayes wrote:
> But if you are a semantic inference engine, and you get the dog and its
> picture muddled, will you likely generate a lot of nonsensical assertions?
> Answer, Yes, you will. Which is the key point at issue here.
We should be able to
On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:51 PM, William Waites wrote:
> * [2011-06-12 22:52:18 -0700] Pat Hayes écrit:
>
> ] OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you
> ] are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue.
> ] Want to try running it past me again? Bear in
Perhaps what we need to start worrying about is getting some test cases
-- or a big pile of real (shonky) data to extract useful facts from...
Would it be worth starting a collection of data which makes sense to
humans but isn't strictly semanticly clear?
William Waites wrote:
* [2011-06-12
* [2011-06-12 22:52:18 -0700] Pat Hayes écrit:
] OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you
] are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue.
] Want to try running it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not
] accept your claim that a description of so
On 6/13/11 9:59 AM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
The real problem seems to me that making resolvable, HTTP URIs for
real world things was a clever but dirty hack and does not make any
semantic
sense.
I think its an ingenious tweak, but easily perceived as a "clever but
dirty hack".
As you
Before I comment, I just want to summarise my understanding because
http-range-14 is a weird term;
I understand it as the range-14 issue that when you use 302 to redirect
from a URI-A to a URL-B we have a convention that URL-B has some
relationship to URI-A but it's not defined, we don't treat
On 6/13/11 6:52 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or
how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it
past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a description
of something is in an
On 6/13/11 1:28 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
But I don't think all this is really germane to the http-range-14 issue. The
point there is, does the URI refer to something like a representation
(information resource, website, document, RDF graph, whatever) or something
which definitely canNOT be sent ov
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or
how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it
past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a description
of something is in any useful sense isomorphic to the thing
On 13 June 2011 02:28, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Next point: there can indeed be correspondences between the syntactic
> structure of a description and the aspects of reality it describes.
That is what I was calling isomorphism (which I still don't think was
inaccurate). But ok, say there are correspo
On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>>> (there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
>>> thing, right?
>>
>> Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things
>> they describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed t
>> (there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
>> thing, right?
>
> Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things they
> describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed to be, eg
> in cartography, but even those cases don't s
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
