jhendler: WOL? SWOL? WebONT? nothing yet compares to the former DAML...
jhendler: but the WOW-G (Aaron's name has stuck) needs a name for our langauge
sbp: Hmm... seriously, I think it needs to be a name rather than JAA (Just Another Acronym)
AaronSw: Actually I think TimBL came up with the term WOW-G.
AaronSw: And I think it should be named Just Another Hairball Hosed Ontology Memetic Enterprise (JAH-HOME).
sbp: SwOnt, OntoLang? O.K., so perhaps an acronym would be better. Words that start with "SW" include: SWAN, SWIPE, SWIM, SWIG, SWILL, SWINE, SWAM...
AaronSw: Information Technology - Semantic Unified Consist Knowledge System
sbp: SemOnt (funky), Metadata Oriented ONtology for Enterprise and Research (Hmm...)
sbp: seems like most people are using "SWOL"
jhendler: but the WOW-G (Aaron's name has stuck) needs a name for our langauge
sbp: Hmm... seriously, I think it needs to be a name rather than JAA (Just Another Acronym)
AaronSw: Actually I think TimBL came up with the term WOW-G.
AaronSw: And I think it should be named Just Another Hairball Hosed Ontology Memetic Enterprise (JAH-HOME).
sbp: SwOnt, OntoLang? O.K., so perhaps an acronym would be better. Words that start with "SW" include: SWAN, SWIPE, SWIM, SWIG, SWILL, SWINE, SWAM...
AaronSw: Information Technology - Semantic Unified Consist Knowledge System
sbp: SemOnt (funky), Metadata Oriented ONtology for Enterprise and Research (Hmm...)
sbp: seems like most people are using "SWOL"
jhendler: Due next Tuesday, but a chance to see what the future hackers of the SW are doing today!
jhendler: on the WIKI, also a bunch of other stuff...
jhendler: on the WIKI, also a bunch of other stuff...
AaronSw: Can someone explain what these guys do? Their webpage isn't very explanative.
AaronSw: It seems sort of like they're standardizing URIs thru NISO.
AaronSw: Whatever they do, they still have a cool theme song and video.
AaronSw: It seems sort of like they're standardizing URIs thru NISO.
AaronSw: Whatever they do, they still have a cool theme song and video.
AaronSw: """Some say Semantic Web will be bigger than WWW. Some consider it to be the next generation of the Web. So what is all the hoopla about? What is Semantic Web? What is Semantics? What are the underpinnings of Semantic Technology? How can Semantic Technology revolutionize how we use web to find and organize information, or conduct business? Will it? What are research challenges? Are businesses taking notice of it?"""
AaronSw: This course is clearly better than Hendler's since Sean and I are required reading.
AaronSw: The professor has a paper in a book Hendler is editing, so perhaps they know each other...
jhendler: another imitation of the UMCP Class?
AaronSw: That their website 404s?
jhendler: another imitation of the UMCP Class?
AaronSw: This course is clearly better than Hendler's since Sean and I are required reading.
AaronSw: The professor has a paper in a book Hendler is editing, so perhaps they know each other...
jhendler: another imitation of the UMCP Class?
AaronSw: That their website 404s?
jhendler: another imitation of the UMCP Class?
em: Adobe's eXtensible Metadata Platform (XMP)
em: XMP encompasses the following: framework, schema, XMP packet technology, and the XMP Software Development Kit which is available as an open-source license.
em: XMP is based on the W3C's open standard for metadata, known as the Resource Description Framework (RDF)
em: XMP encompasses the following: framework, schema, XMP packet technology, and the XMP Software Development Kit which is available as an open-source license.
em: XMP is based on the W3C's open standard for metadata, known as the Resource Description Framework (RDF)
danbri: 'Some are led by poor reasoning into faulty ontologies. For example, McX may reason as follows: "Pegasus [a flying horse of ancient mythology] must in some sense exist -- because if we say 'Pegasus doesn't exist' we have to be talking about something.""'
AaronSw: a refutation of danbri's unicorn puzzle.
AaronSw: RDF is a system for describing Resources, and Resources are anything that have identity. Unicorns have identity, whether or not they exist in a physical sense, and so I think it's perfectly reasonable to make claims about them in RDF.
AaronSw: (BTW, I'm refuting danbri's seemingly implicit assumption that anything we describe in RDF must exist in a physical sense.)
danbri: Sorry, that's not too helpful. What is "has identity" supposed to mean?
AaronSw: I always interpreted as meaning something you could refer to -- a concept you could communicate to another human being. It's not been specified too formally, AFAIK.
danbri: Nope, I'm happy with other things existing, eg. dc:title, or other abstractions. Unicorns are the kind of thing that if there were any of them, they'd be running around as physical things.
danbri: Anyhow I mention this trick, see the bit re wordnet catloguing Unicorns under mental phenomena
AaronSw: Does Shakespeare not exist because we don't have him running around?
danbri: These are slippery questions. Same thing for past events / future events.
AaronSw: I guess it depends on how you define Existence.
AaronSw: I've never seen a unicorn, only pictures of them. So I don't think these are slippery questions at all. I think it's very simple.
DanC: unicorns exist at least as much as integers and infinite sets do.
danbri: Pick some other class whose extension happens to be empty, and imagine a drawing/cartoon/etc that depicts something that appears to be from its extension
danbri: Puzzle is to describe the cartoon without asserting that the drawing depicts a thing that exists
bijan: DanC, not necessarily. Integers, at least, as Quine would argue, are indispensible values of the variables of our best theories of the world.
bijan: Even if you don't think that's a sufficient criterion for "really real" existence, it's a point of difference.
bijan: Perhaps more to the point, unicorns aren't supposed to exist in the way integers do. I.e., they're supposed to be concrete and physical individuals (i.e., like horses and cows).
bijan: Locatable in time and space, no less!
DanC: forget I got involved in this. Seems like a case of letting natural-language intuitions cloud formal systems.
bijan: No, it really isn't. See the Quine article above. Reference to nonexistents is a complex issue.
bijan: Aaron's "refutation" is completely off base. The issue is whether unicorns exists at all. How many are there? If they have identity, how do you tell which one you are talking about? What does it mean to talk about this(?!) unicorn?
bijan: I.e., if you're going to claim that unicorns have idenity, you need to supply the identity and individuation conditions. Which you haven't :)
bijan: As for the "something you can refer to" that exactly brings up the troubles all over again :) Many solutions to the problem of refering to non-existents try to show that the apparent reference isn't reference at all.
bijan: See Russell's theory of descriptions.
AaronSw: RDF is a system for describing Resources, and Resources are anything that have identity. Unicorns have identity, whether or not they exist in a physical sense, and so I think it's perfectly reasonable to make claims about them in RDF.
AaronSw: (BTW, I'm refuting danbri's seemingly implicit assumption that anything we describe in RDF must exist in a physical sense.)
danbri: Sorry, that's not too helpful. What is "has identity" supposed to mean?
AaronSw: I always interpreted as meaning something you could refer to -- a concept you could communicate to another human being. It's not been specified too formally, AFAIK.
danbri: Nope, I'm happy with other things existing, eg. dc:title, or other abstractions. Unicorns are the kind of thing that if there were any of them, they'd be running around as physical things.
danbri: Anyhow I mention this trick, see the bit re wordnet catloguing Unicorns under mental phenomena
AaronSw: Does Shakespeare not exist because we don't have him running around?
danbri: These are slippery questions. Same thing for past events / future events.
AaronSw: I guess it depends on how you define Existence.
AaronSw: I've never seen a unicorn, only pictures of them. So I don't think these are slippery questions at all. I think it's very simple.
DanC: unicorns exist at least as much as integers and infinite sets do.
danbri: Pick some other class whose extension happens to be empty, and imagine a drawing/cartoon/etc that depicts something that appears to be from its extension
danbri: Puzzle is to describe the cartoon without asserting that the drawing depicts a thing that exists
bijan: DanC, not necessarily. Integers, at least, as Quine would argue, are indispensible values of the variables of our best theories of the world.
bijan: Even if you don't think that's a sufficient criterion for "really real" existence, it's a point of difference.
bijan: Perhaps more to the point, unicorns aren't supposed to exist in the way integers do. I.e., they're supposed to be concrete and physical individuals (i.e., like horses and cows).
bijan: Locatable in time and space, no less!
DanC: forget I got involved in this. Seems like a case of letting natural-language intuitions cloud formal systems.
bijan: No, it really isn't. See the Quine article above. Reference to nonexistents is a complex issue.
bijan: Aaron's "refutation" is completely off base. The issue is whether unicorns exists at all. How many are there? If they have identity, how do you tell which one you are talking about? What does it mean to talk about this(?!) unicorn?
bijan: I.e., if you're going to claim that unicorns have idenity, you need to supply the identity and individuation conditions. Which you haven't :)
bijan: As for the "something you can refer to" that exactly brings up the troubles all over again :) Many solutions to the problem of refering to non-existents try to show that the apparent reference isn't reference at all.
bijan: See Russell's theory of descriptions.
danbri: Home page for Willard Van Orman Quine, mathematician and philosopher
danbri: Can't seem to find much by way of online texts :(
danbri: Can't seem to find much by way of online texts :(
xena: Sorry... stupid programmers.
sbp: Let's have this in RDF!