tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42839090474081430942012-02-10T03:00:17.012-05:00Exploring the depths of the semantic gap between the Semantic Web and real world users and consumersJack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.comBlogger1371100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-36210943262927766622011-11-25T13:19:00.001-05:002011-11-25T13:19:27.373-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Computational agents can be considered intelligent to the extent that they utilize human-level knowledge in their behavior. How to do that is the great difficulty. I submit that the <EM>trick of knowledge</EM> is going beyond mere possession of the facts of knowledge to the ability to know <EM>how to apply knowledge</EM>. So, if we want to encode knowledge in a form that is useful to computational agents, that encoding must also include an encoding of the <EM>knowledge of how to apply that knowledge</EM>. Sure, we can hard-wire that latter knowledge, but that may be difficult, error prone, and probably much less flexible or adaptable to evolution of the environment. And even if we are successful at that hard-wiring, that hard-wired knowledge must be properly parameterized to be used in a complex environment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>It is worth noting that even the knowledge of how to apply knowledge needs its own knowledge of how to apply that knowhow, and so on seemingly ad infinitum. Clearly at some level there must be hard-wired knowledge. Picking that level is a central challenge, but does highlight the need for a rich knowledge-based infrastructure.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In any case, the trick of knowledge is not in <EM>what</EM> you know, but in your ability to apply that knowledge. Maybe that is the essence of intelligence itself.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3621094326292776662?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-59336432424692465302011-11-23T19:54:00.001-05:002011-11-23T19:54:34.472-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There are two forms of <EM>truth</EM> that we have to deal with:</DIV> <OL> <LI>Truth of existence. Does an object or phenomenon exist in reality? <LI>Truth of statements. Is a statement true or false?</LI></OL> <DIV>In real life both are equally relevant. We are surrounded by and part of the physical world. The world of language and statements is but a subset of our world, but a very important subset and the subset that is the primary focus of what separates humanity from the rest of the physical world.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>But inside of a computer, where reality is kept at a distance and almost literally is a separate and distinct universe, truth is concerned mainly with statements and the notion of existence outside the realm of inside of a computer is itself a mere statement. In other words, the computer can know about the real world only to the extent that we seed its pool of statements with statements about the real world that we know to be true. We must define what is true of the real world.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If truth of existence means anything inside of a computer, it is simply as statements making assertions about the real, outside world, statements which a computer cannot evaluate per se and whose truth can only be obtained by human or other physical input in statements whose only justification is of the form "because we, agents of the outside world, say it is so."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In short, beliefs about the outside world are true inside of a computer only to the extent that we external agents have correctly encoded our external truth into machine-cognizable statements of truth. We must define truth about the outside world. Unfortunately, we may be wrong or may make mistakes when doing such encodings, so there is the risk that a computer may not start out with a true understanding of the outside world.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Eventually, ultimately, as we embellish computers with sensors and the ability to directly "learn" from those sensors and human documents and other artifacts, it may be possible for a computer to directly "learn" at least some aspects of truth in the real world. But, once again, truth inside the computer will be limited by pre-programmed assumptions about how sensors and human artifacts work. After all, how can a computer "know" whether our manufactured sensors accurately convey "the truth of the real world" and don't distort this "truth" in some ways of either malevolent or accidental nature, sometimes even despite the best of intentions or maybe because of the worst of intentions.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Could we construct the ideal criminal or achieve some ideal sense of evil, either by accident, negligence, or by intention? We may even create evil simply as a test case, but will we be able to control it? Or maybe someone may create evil because they do seek to control it, or maybe someone might create an intentionally uncontrollable evil solely in the pursuit of chaos.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In any case, achieving alignment between the truth of the world and the truth of statements within a computer is a tricky business to be sure.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5933643242469246530?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-1446254717343871632011-07-03T14:06:00.001-04:002011-07-03T14:06:20.851-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>No matter how advanced our Semantic Web technology becomes, we still have an inherent problem, namely, the semantic gap between simple, plain text and our semantic markup. How do we correlate a textual representations and semantically marked-up representations?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>At the most basic level, we need to be able to correlate semantic entities with textual references to them. Sometimes that can be a simple text lookup, but often there are multiple semantic entities that have similar if not identical textual representations, especially when the textual representations are frequently shorthand notations rather full, detailed entity references.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Lookups are complicated by the fact that some entities have names that are raw natural language prose so that they cannot be unambiguously distinguished from simple prose. For example, names of bands, songs, plays, books, movies, parks, etc. As an even more complex example, a movie based on a book may have the same name.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Even for references to people, people use nick names and some people have the same name. For examples, "Krupansky, J." may be a reference to me in the bibliography of a technical paper, or it may be a reference in a legal document to one of two court judges. This particular example suggests that context can aid in the identification process, but with the two judges even context can be problematic. A human can tell the two judges apart since one was at the state level and the other at the federal level, but both were in Ohio. They in fact were brother and sister, but with no apparent relation to me. How a computer would differentiate those two or even all three of us without significant guidance or hand-coded "intelligence" is an open question.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One simple identification issue is the use of articles in entity names. Technically, the Beatles are really "The Beatles" and "The" is quite significant when referring to "The Office." A lot of traditional text processing algorithms like to ignore punctuation, articles, and so-called "stop words", but increasingly these ephemera are becoming more significant. Yahoo is really "Yahoo!". And then there is the musician formerly known as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" with a non-textual symbol as his formal entity name. The point is that casual and even somewhat formal textual references to entities can be quite far from the pure, true, formal, literal entity identifier.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>References to the works of an entity or to characteristics of an entity can be similarly problematic in raw text representations. Ultimately there may be a single, hard URI for the referenced entity, but getting from raw text to URI can be a real challenge.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In some cases, even our best computational efforts may still result in ambiguous references. Then we have a really tough choice, either to pick the "best" reference by some measure or heuristic, or to simply represent a list of possible references. The latter works semi-well for display for a human user, such as the results from a search engine, but is somewhat problematic when a computer program is processing the results and expecting a singular result.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The good news is that in many cases just a little context can go a long way. If someone is querying about computers and software, I would have a higher probability of being a match than the judges. If someone is querying about legal cases, then Krupansky the judge(s) could be selected, although even in that case we still have an ambiguity.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Correlating bands and songs is at least superficially a slam dunk since the mapping between bands and songs tends to be relatively sparse, but there are no guarantees and the state of the art for automated software is that some form of guarantee is needed.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Misspelling of entity names is also a problem. If you know the category of the entity, such as that it is a band or a song, then traditional spell-checking algorithms may be sufficient, but if you are just looking at a fragment of raw text with no context or category, the problem becomes much harder. A mis-phrased song or book title can look a lot like a lot of raw prose. Still, traditional phrase matching algorithms may do reasonably well telling you if a fragment of text happens to match up with one or more entity names, but you could also get a lot of false positives when the user is simply making a casual statement rather than intentionally referring to a named entity. Still, alerting the user to the possible entity reference can have at least some value even if it may not be 100% relevant. The harder problem is if there are a very large number of partial matches; then the user could well&nbsp; be overwhelmed rather than aided.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A simple solution is faceting where the user is told not the list of all possible matches, but the categories of matches. This can dramatically reduce the amount of information to be presented to the user. The user can then drill down for more detail. Still, even this approach may result in information overload.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Another tool is a user-generated dictionary that fills in the particular user's preference for a partial or ambiguous entity reference the first time it needs to be resolved. Not that any user would necessarily need to manually create such a dictionary. In fact a collection of such resolution dictionaries may be automatically supplied with just a little context about the user and their tasks. Once source is to find other users of similar characteristics and then offer the dictionaries for that other user as a starting point. Maybe the user could supply a list of people they "think like" or are interesting in following and that can be used to seed the user's resolution dictionary collection.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In summary, matching textual entity references embedded in raw text is an open problem. Yes, there are a lot of tools readily available that may address the problem, more work in this area may be quite helpful. And, most importantly, bridging the semantic gap between the worlds of text and semantic entities is an important goal.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-144625471734387163?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-44781095662718618292011-07-01T14:54:00.001-04:002011-07-01T14:54:46.988-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I have been trying to think about how to encode even relatively simple human knowledge in simple RDF triples and what issues arise. What could be simpler than... an apple and its color? Sure, some things are simpler, but so much is much more complicated.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In a simple, toy system I might define a class of objects called "fruit", a sub-class called "apple", and have instances of the apple class. Simple enough. I might have a "color" property. Simple enough. Hmmm... but what are the values of color? A literal string like "red"? A numeric set of RGB values? Shades of primary colors? Add another object of class "color", and push out the same questions to the propertiesof that class? So, in my simple, toy system, I would now have objects of class "apple" each of which has an associated "color" object. Although, I am not so comfortable saying that basic properties must be promoted to the level of objects even if having all values be objects may be a better system architecture. This is starting to be a lot of complexity for simple things.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One question: Does each object have its own color? Sure, that makes sense? But, shouldn't I be able to ask questions about objects of that class in general? Sure. Now, there are two ways to go about that: 1) do a statistical analysis of all instances of the class and then summarize the results, possible as a histogram or something like that, or 2) contrive an abstract rule that generally describes what the population of the class would be, even if that is only an approximation. I might simply want to know "generally", or "typically", or "as a common case" what color are apples. Some are yellow, some green, but many are red, so how can I represent that information as a "rule" rather than have to do a massive data collection effort and sift through the results?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>But even for apples that are "red" or "green" or whatever, rarely would they be exactly and perfectly one single color. They may be "reddish" or "greenish" or "mostly red" or "mostly green."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In fact, rather than an individual apple having a specific color, you can come up with a wide range of colors by sampling various points on the object's surface, each of which can have its own color. Once again, we can do a massive amount of data collection and then look at distributions of values and highlight dominant values or average values. And that is just for one instance of the class and we would like to do similar analysis across the population of the class instances. And this is just for a relatively simple object. Once again, we would like to come up with relatively simple rules to describe the class and its instances.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The general problem here is not simply how to encode information about objects and classes, but in what forms do users want to examine that information? What is the user's context? Do they want a simple, general answer? Do they want a simple, general, and specific answer that may not be technically accurate for individual objects (e.g., "Most apples are red."), but nonetheless be generally useful? Maybe they want that statistical summary. Maybe they want that vaguer but more accurate simple answer, "reddish." Maybe they want that full, sampled image with its discrete values for their own analysis. Or maybe they have a reference color and they simply want to know if it is an "acceptable" or even "normal" (not "rotten") value for an apple.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Maybe there are a range of generic "query formats" for fetching object and class properties that can be shared across all objects and classes or at least over broad classes of objects. So, one of these generic formats could be chosen by the user and the actual property value(s) would be transformed to match the requested format.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And maybe they just want to start somewhere with a basic answer and then examine it and drill down for more detail or more abstraction on their own as they see fit.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Maybe the user can specify a "degree of specificity" in their request and that would guide what specific form the returned property value would take.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And now we go on to other classes of objects and their "color" and we wonder to what extent we can compare or use colors across those disparate classes. Is a particular car the same color as objects of the class apple?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I am probably only scratching the surface, but these are some of the issues with trying to represent human-level knowledge in a technology world where representing even only basic information is still a real challenge.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Hmmm... I wonder if developing functionally complete ontologies for apples and colors may be even more of a challenge than even a dozen doctorate dissertations? Toy ontologies, no problem; human-level knowledge, that's a harder nut to crack.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4478109566271861829?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-50628391014352708132011-06-26T12:49:00.000-04:002011-06-26T12:50:13.923-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>So, where are all the intelligent agents? <A href="http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler/presentations/Hendler-IADIS.pdf">The question keeps popping up</A> and the list of excuses remains long and the final answer is always some variant of "coming soon." My own personal answer is that intelligent agents are critically dependent on having a very rich intelligent semantic infrastructure. In other words, factor a lot of the intelligence out of individual agents and leverage the merged intelligence in a common, shared rich intelligent semantic infrastructure so that individual agents can be relatively dumb in their implementation but appear to be quite intelligent in operation.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In short, there are lots of tools and services and even data out there, but it is all too disjoint and nebulous and not coherent and cohesive and integrated enough to constitute the kind of deep integrated rich intelligent semantic infrastructure that is needed to make software agents grow like weeds. So, maybe, but not necessarily, we have all the pieces but they are not arranged in a critical mass where software agents can readily sprout.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- Jack Krupansky</DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5062839101435270813?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-40352900528459495212011-06-26T11:50:00.001-04:002011-06-26T11:50:22.821-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Making intelligent software agents both powerful and easy to construct, manage, and maintain will require a very rich semantic infrastructure. Without such a rich semantic infrastructure, the bulk of the intelligence would have to be inside the individual agents, or very cleverly encoded by the designer, or even more cleverly encoded in an armada of relatively dumb distributed agents that offer collective intelligence, but all of those approaches would put intelligent software agents far beyond the reach of average users or even average software professionals or average computer scientists. The alternative is to leverage all of that intellect and invest it in producing an intelligent semantic infrastructure that relatively dumb software agents can then feed off of. Simple-minded agents will effectively gain intelligence by being able to stand on the shoulders of giants. How to design and construct such a rich semantic infrastructure is an open question.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Some of the levels of richness that can be used to characterize a semantic infrastructure:</DIV> <UL> <LI>Fully Automatic – intelligent actions occur within the infrastructure itself without any explicit action of agents <LI>Goal-Oriented Processing – infrastructure processes events and conditions based on goals that agents register <LI>Goal-Oriented Triggering – agents register very high-level goals and the infrastructure initiates agent activity as needed <LI>Task-Oriented Triggering – agents register for events and conditions and are notified, much as database triggers <LI>Very High-Level Scripting – agents have explicit code to check for conditions, but little programming skill is needed <LI>Traditional Scripting – agents are scripted using scripting languages familiar to today's developers <LI>Hard-Coded Agents – agents are carefully hand-coded for accuracy and performance using programming languages such as Java or C++ <LI>Web Services – agents rely on API-level services provided by carefully selected and coded intelligent web servers <LI>Proprietary Services – Only a limited set of services are available to the average agent on a cost/license basis <LI>Custom Network – a powerful distributed computing approach, but expensive, not leveraged, difficult to plan, operate, and maintain</LI></UL> <DIV>This is really only one dimension of richness, a measure of how information is processed. Another dimension would be the richness of the information itself, such as data, information, knowledge, wisdom, and various degrees within each of those categories. In other words, what units of information are being processed by agents and the infrastructure. The goal is to get to some reasonably high-level form of knowledge as the information unit. The Semantic Web uses URIs, triples, and graphs, which is as good a starting point as any, but I suspect that a much higher-level unit of knowledge is needed to achieve a semantic infrastructure rich enough to support truly intelligent software agents that can operate at the goal-oriented infrastructure level and be reasonably easy to conceptualize, design, develop, debug, deploy, manage, and maintain, and to do all of that with a significantly lower level of skill than even an average software professional. End-users should be able to build and use such intelligent agents.</DIV> <DIV><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Agtivity.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4035290052845949521?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-63418748728041512562011-03-06T14:12:00.004-05:002011-03-06T15:52:03.017-05:00RDF and other Semantic Web technologies are powerful tools for hard-core information professionals to publish data for the Semantic Web, but are hardly usable for mere mortals such as consumers and other average users who wish to make their own content available on the Semantic Web. I propose what I call <em>linked lists</em> as a possible approach to publishing consumer-generated content for the Semantic Web. I am not using the term in the sense of traditional computer science (the linked list data structure), but more as a derivative of Linked Data and the Linked Open Data (LOD) movement. I started by noting that people like to keep and reference lists: lists of things to do, lists of people, lists of places, lists of songs, lists of movies, lists of restaurants, and even lists of lists. Lists tend to have a simple structure, easily processed by computer programs, and much of the data on the lists can relatively easily be translated into RDF-style URIs, at least in theory, and assuming that a sufficient library of the underlying concepts is developed, which is of course the segue into the world of Linked Open Data.</p><p>It is not the purpose or intent of this post to go into technical details, but simply to raise awareness of the basic concept of using consumer-generated lists as a way to introduce average users into being not just consumers of the Semantic Web, but generators of Semantic Web content as well.</p><p>Some lists are simple single-column lists of named entities. Simple enough, but the names may be nick names, incomplete partial names, misspelled names, ambiguous names, etc. That raise the point about the importance of entity name resolution for "entry" into the world of the Semantic Web. I see this as a solvable problem, but it does illustrate just how yawning is the chasm between the world of real people and the Semantic Web itself. One opportunity here is that the multiple items on the list itself can provide a form of context that can help identify the category to be used for the list. Do the items look like names of places, names of things, names of people, movies, songs, bands, etc.? Once the category is identified, entity name resolution is substantially simpler. In some cases automated methods can complete 100% of the resolution, in some cases the user can be presented with a single likely match for confirmation, and in other cases a list of possible matches can be offered.</p><p>Multi-column lists would seem to be a harder problem, but the columns provide context. A name column may not be unique, but address or phone number may provide enough disambiguation. A song name may not be unique to a performer and spelled out properly, but adding a band or album name column might be plenty to disambiguate. The song name and performer names might both be incomplete or partially wrong, but combined they may actually be sufficient for disambiguation or to at least dramatically reduce the possible likely options.</p><p>Multiple columns may be unnecessary other than as memory aids and for disambiguation. After all, the LOD cloud should have all of the public data for an any entity. So, the user can simply maintain their own stripped-down representation for any entity and then let the SemWeb itself supply any additional desired information. As long as enough info is supplied to identify the entity (or even plural entities), there is no need for the user to keep more detailed info in their own list. So, maybe the user can conceptually think of their lists as having two sides or parts: 1) their own raw list in their own preferred format (e.g., simple text file or spreadsheet), and 2) their preferred representation of the actual referenced LOD entities. Note that the SemWeb representation might be in a non-list format such as a graphical map or other structured format or even a full spreadsheet or database layout, if that is what the user has chosen. Of course, the user could choose any number of formats.</p><p>There will likely be some interest in templates for multi-column lists, but I don't see them as a requirement since the rows of the list provide disambiguating context. In fact, generally, the <em>category</em> of most lists will be quite obvious to even relatively simple automated analyzers, presuming there are enough rows. This does highlight the importance of being able to identify the category of SemWeb entities.</p><p>The user could of course author and maintain their lists in their favorite local editing tool such as a text editor or spreadsheet, but it is likely that keeping lists online would be preferable. Presumably sites would spring up which specialize in maintaining and publishing SemWeb lists. Of course there would be privacy controls so that private lists remain completely private or only shared as the user decides, but it should be dirt-simple easy to quickly publish a user-generated list. And once a user-generated list gets published to the Semantic Web, presto, it is now a candidate for getting linked into the LOD cloud.</p><p>Linking of user lists can occur in two ways: 1) A simple, direct link, such as a user-generated "list of favorite lists", or 2) creating a <em>derivative list</em> based on one or more existing published lists. Besides creating their own list from scratch or by wholesale copying of an existing published list the user could reference an existing list and tell the software that the user wants to "start with" the existing list and then supplement it, adding some items and deleting others. The user might even request that multiple lists be combined. Or maybe include only some columns of data. A common usage would be for a user to identify a <em>trendsetter</em> (maybe just a friend) and supplement that list with their own personal interests. The key is to maintain is a dynamic reference to the <em>base</em> list and the user's full, published list will change as any base lists change.</p><p>The user's lists would be as the user creates and maintains them and completely devoid of formal URIs or other arcane SemWeb concepts. The published version would of course be in hard-core RDF, but with the clear-text <em>source</em> as well. The user would also have the option of automatically "cleaning up" their list to correct spelling errors, complete names, etc.</p><p>Linked lists provide an opportunity for dramatically increasing the scope of the Sematic Web and also provide an opportunity to escape from the current paradigm of web sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn being <em>walled gardens</em> holding user data captive.</p><p>The issue of exactly where online user lists would be published and store is open, but the simple answer is: <em>anywhere</em>. In some sense user lists would be similar to blogs in that a user might have their own domain or chose a <em>hosting</em> site that caters to their personal skills and interests. The real point is that it truly does not matter where linked lists reside once they are identified or registered as being part of the Semantic Web. That raises the question of how to register new lists, but I am sure there will be plenty of sites and users ready and willing to fill that void.<p>-- <a href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6341874872804151256?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-48985963820215588582011-03-06T12:32:00.003-05:002011-03-06T15:45:34.551-05:00We have a wide-range spectrum of levels of abstraction for representing information in computers, none of which is particularly well adapted to representing human knowledge in a form that is readily comprehended by computer programs. At the low end of the spectrum we have bits, bytes, characters, text, databases, XML, and even RDF for the Semantic Web. We have specialized abstractions for specialized applications as well. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum we have various so-called <em>knowledge representation languages</em> which purport to being able to represent <em>knowledge</em>, but only in a host of well-defined, limited, constrained, forms that are still not representative of true <em>human knowledge</em> and are not directly recognizable and usable by mere mortals. Sad to say it, but <em>text</em> for natural language is the closest form we have in computers to something that is recognizable and usable by mere mortals. Unfortunately, free-form text is not readily and easily recognizable and usable to computer programs (as a surrogate for human knowledge.) So, we have a vast semantic gap between the <em>bits</em> of computers and the knowledge of humans.</p><p>I wish I had some graphic ability so that I could draw a fancy diagram of this spectrum of information and knowledge representation, but I don't, so I'll the spectrum as a simple list, starting at the low end:</p><ol><li><strong>Bits</strong> - zero and one, on and off. <li><strong>Bytes</strong> <li><strong>Characters and numbers</strong> <li><strong>Strings</strong> - sequences of characters representing individual words or identifiers <li><strong>Text</strong> - free-form sequences of strings or words, possibly even natural language prose <li><strong>Structured text</strong> - tabular lists (e.g., CSV) <li><strong>Databases</strong> <li><strong>Application-specific data formats</strong> <li><strong>XML</strong> <li><strong>RDF</strong> <li><em>Big Gap #1</em> <li><strong>Knowledge representation languages</strong> <li><em>Big Gap #2</em> <li><strong>Human knowledge and human language</strong></li></ol><p>RDF is a knowledge representation language of sorts, but is more specialized and adapted to representing raw information than more <em>humanly-recognizable knowledge</em>.</p><p>It is worth noting that there is a distinction between knowledge and communication, but that is beyond the scope of the main issue of the point about bits vs. human knowledge. One distinction is the concept of <em>tacit knowledge</em> which is knowledge that defies straightforward communication or representation in language.</p><p>This information/knowledge spectrum layout immediately begs the question of the sub-spectrum of knowledge representation languages, a topic worthy of attention, but that is beyond the scope of the immediate issue.</p><p>One of the most notable causes of the vast sematic gap between current knowledge representation languages and human knowledge is the issue of vocabulary definition. Computer-based systems strive to minimize and eliminate <em>ambiguity</em> while human knowledge and language embrace and thrive on ambiguity. <em>Coping with ambiguity</em> may be the ultimate abyss to be hurdled before computers can have ready access to human knowledge.</p><p>One major problem with knowledge representation languages is that there are a lot of them, a virtual <em>Tower of Babel</em> of them, so that we do not have a <em>common knowledge language</em> that can be leveraged across all forms of knowledge and all application domains. <em>Leverage</em> is a very powerful tool for solving problems with computers, but <em>lack of leverage</em> is one of the most serious obstacles to solving problems with computers. Leverage can rapidly accelerate the adoption of new technology, but lack of leverage seriously retards adoption. XML and RDF were big leaps forward in leverage, but still nowhere near enough.</p><p>One open question is whether a rich-enough knowledge representation language can be built using RDF as its lower level, or whether something richer and more flexible than RDF is needed. This may hinge on what stance you take on ambiguity.</p><p>-- <a href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4898596382021558858?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-16539740382314351582010-12-28T07:20:00.002-05:002011-03-06T15:53:49.179-05:00At a grossly oversimplified level, the Semantic Web consists of <EM>semantic islands</EM> and <EM>semantic links</EM> between those islands, each represented by a <EM>uniform resource identifier</EM> (URI) and a collection (graph) of very brief <EM>statements</EM> (<EM>triples</EM>) in turn constructed from URIs. In essence, each of these semantic islands is a concentration of knowledge, as is each of the semantic links as well.</P> <P>But what about all of the <EM>space</EM> between islands as well as all of the <EM>dotted-line links</EM> that are too weak to be recognized as formal semantic links? All of this <EM>white space</EM> that is somehow not a recognized part of the <EM>semantic map</EM> of <EM>formal knowledge</EM>. I'll refer to all of this <EM>informal knowledge</EM> that is outside and beside and under and over and around and in between the formal islands of knowledge and the formal links between these formal islands of&nbsp; knowledge as <EM>semantic white space</EM>.</P> <P><EM>Semantic white space</EM> is <EM>informal knowledge</EM> that exists in the margins of our <EM>formal knowledge</EM> which is just as important, but usually is accorded even less status than a second-class citizen in the hierarchy of knowledge.</P> <P>If we are ever to construct a true consumer-centric knowledge web we will need to accord informal knowledge and semantic white space first-class status on a par with formal knowledge.</P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1653974038231435158?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-85568452925967956452010-09-16T19:28:00.000-04:002010-09-16T19:29:01.846-04:00<P>Cafe Philo in New York City will meet&nbsp;next week on Thursday, September 23, 2010 with&nbsp;a discussion on the topic of "<STRONG><A title="http://isayjackkrup.blogspot.com/2010/09/cafe-philo-in-new-york-city-in-two.html&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://isayjackkrup.blogspot.com/2010/09/cafe-philo-in-new-york-city-in-two.html">Could we live well without borders?</A></STRONG>" It is time to explore the nuances of that question.</P> <P>We have to start by exploring what we even mean by the concept of <EM>borders</EM>.</P> <P>First off, there are a lot of kinds of "borders", but I will assume that we are primarily interested in <EM>political</EM> borders.</P> <P>There are lots of types of <EM>political entities</EM>, including towns, boroughs, cities, counties, states, and countries, which all have a lot of common qualities, but I will assume that we are primarily interested in <EM>national political entities</EM> or <EM>countries</EM>.</P> <P>So, when we casually refer to "borders" we are typically referring to the <EM>borders between countries</EM>.</P> <P>One nuance is that there is distinction that could be drawn between borders and <EM>boundaries</EM>. A boundary is more of an imaginary or virtual "line" between adjacent countries, as in the lines drawn on a map, whereas an actual border is the physical manifestation of that imagined boundary in the real world, such as signs, fences, walls, other markers, checkpoints, etc. In some cases there may be no actual border per se, such as a country bounded by an ocean, or where a lake or river separates two countries and the division is only that imagined boundary line.</P> <P>The border between Iraq and Iran is a great example. In some places there is a very visible border with border crossings under strict control. Then you have the southern portion of the Tigris river to the Persian Gulf (actually referred to as the Shatt al-Arab waterway)&nbsp;where there is no real border per se other than the imagined boundary in the middle of the Tigris waterway. That lack of a clearly discernable border led to the capture of British sailors by Iran who claimed they were in Iranian territory. One report indicates that Iraq and Iran have no <EM>formal agreement</EM> as to where the boundary line is, so the simple notion of an imaginary line down the middle of the waterway (relative to some agreed tidal conditions) is up in the air in that situation. Recently we have seen the case of the alleged "hikers" in northern Iraq who supposedly "strayed" across the border into Iran without even realizing that they had in fact crossed any "border". In other words, there is no visible border unless you are aware of local custom, even if legally there might be a more formal virtual boundary that may be clearly discernable on maps.</P> <P>Another nuance is air travel where you hop on a plane "in" one country and then "land" in another country without physically encountering&nbsp;any actual border, just a traversal across that imagined boundary line or maybe even an ocean. In fact, you may "fly over" any number of countries during that flight, but are you ever really "in" any of them? Have you ever really "entered" a country except by passing across a physical border or a surrogate&nbsp;for the border in the form of&nbsp;an immigration station at the airport?</P> <P>Personally, I would say that I have never been "in" Vietnam, but back in 1987 or so I was on a flight from Singapore to Hong Kong and the pilot announced that we were "over" Da Nang (I think, or one of the other notable cities in Vietnam.) I would not say that I have been "to" Vietnam, but maybe I can semi-legitimately claim that I was "in" Vietnam in the sense of being within its boundaries, at least as a crow flies.</P> <P>Some borders are heavily fortified or require advance permission (a visa) to cross, or at least some sort of <EM>documentation</EM> such as a passport or drivers license to cross. Then there are the borders <EM>within</EM> the European Union which are effectively open, regardless of which member country you are a citizen of.</P> <P>To me, this discussion topic is less about the physical manifestation of a border than the abstract concept of the imagined boundary. Even further, it is not the actual boundary that matters, but an abstract boundary that for all intents and purposes is just a circle or rectangle that lets us refer simply to "here" and "there" or "us" and "them." So, I think the core subject of the discussion topic is not borders per se, but what I would call <EM>abstract national borders</EM>.</P> <P>But even that is still not be specific about the desired concept. My hunch is that ultimately the discussion topic is really about whether dividing the world and people into countries is <EM>necessary</EM> or necessarily advantageous. In other words, maybe the discussion is about whether <EM>world government</EM> is viable, or is it beneficial to divide people and places into separate and distinct <EM>nations</EM> with clear delineations between them. Or maybe we could say that we are interested in discussing the notion of <EM>national identity</EM> and whether it is needed or not or beneficial or maybe even harmful.</P> <P>In any case, the four big things that people seem to care the most about relative to borders are <EM>laws</EM>, <EM>culture </EM>(including language and customs), <EM>communications</EM>, and <EM>trade</EM>. Political borders allow a clear distinction in how law is decided and structured. Culture does not require borders per se and can differ dramatically by <EM>regions</EM> within&nbsp; country that are not necessarily political in nature, but is still a major differentiation between countries. Trade certainly occurs regardless of whether there is a political boundary involved, but the <EM>terms</EM> of the trade, including laws that relate to trade can be affected greatly by political differences between countries. Communications seems to stand out as something that is likely to occur regardless of borders, although <EM>regulation</EM> of the communications <EM>infrastructure</EM> within and between separate countries can be impacted by political considerations within and between&nbsp;separate countries.</P> <P>I'll stop there for now to give myself and others a chance to review and ponder all of that before continuing.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8556845292596795645?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-83399991007170580792010-08-29T19:09:00.000-04:002010-08-29T19:10:06.686-04:00<P>I tried to come up with the narrowest possible subject line for this post about mistakes, but it does cover quite a range.</P> <P>Although we do casually use "wrong" in a pragmatic sense such as "making a wrong turn" on a trip, or "giving the wrong answer" on a test, and technically this is a proper usage, my own understanding has been that "wrong" as in "right and wrong" is primarily an issue of morality. We can speak of a "wrong turn in life", as an error in judgment which has led to moral issues. I think of mistakes and errors in a hierarchy of philosophical levels:</P> <OL> <LI><STRONG>Wrong </STRONG>- morality, at a moral level, all about principle <LI><STRONG>Improper</STRONG> - ethics, an ethical lapse, or issue of legality (illegal, irregardless of whether it is morally right or wrong) <LI><STRONG>Incorrect</STRONG> - pragmatics, a "technical" mistake (including an invalid scientific theory) which has practical implications, but not in a moral or ethical sense <LI><STRONG>Undesirable </STRONG>- aesthetics, not really a practical problem per se, but a cause for unpleasantness or embarrassment or social stigma (even if it might be technically correct or legal or "right") <LI><STRONG>Dangerous </STRONG>- existentialism, leads to a threat to survival or risk of significant imminent physical harm</LI></OL> <P>My point is that we can interpret mistakes or "wrong" at any or all of these levels and should be clear when we speak as to which we are talking about.</P> <P>This is a casual model on my part. There could be other categories or the categories could be divided differently. In other words, I could be wrong, in a category 3 or 4 sense. I reserve the right to "revise and extend" my model later in the discussion.</P> <P>Drinking, especially by underage adults and teens can quickly lead to category 5 "mistakes", such as the young woman who died in a fall from a high-rise apartment after an evening of "clubbing." Drunk driving, mistakes by aircraft pilots and vehicle&nbsp; drivers, and medical errors can also result in category 5 mistakes.</P> <P>BTW, my hunch is that the "shame" referenced by Kathryn Schulz in her book Being Wrong would be for my category 3 and 4 mistakes which is pragmatic or aesthetic, not an ethical, moral, or existential problem, but quite unpleasant and embarrassing.</P> <P>See:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM><STRONG>Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error</STRONG> by Kathryn Schulz<BR>Stuart Jeffries is cheered by a writer who sees a social value in our habit of mucking things up<BR></EM><A title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/28/being-wrong-kathryn-schulz-review&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/28/being-wrong-kathryn-schulz-review">http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/28/being-wrong-kathryn-schulz-review</A></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>and</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><A title="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/06/07/on-air-and-on-error-this-american-life-s-ira-glass-on-being-wrong.aspx&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/06/07/on-air-and-on-error-this-american-life-s-ira-glass-on-being-wrong.aspx">http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/06/07/on-air-and-on-error-this-american-life-s-ira-glass-on-being-wrong.aspx</A></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>and</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Slate posts by Kathryn Schulz<BR></EM><A href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/search/searchresults.aspx?u=2434">http://www.slate.com/blogs/search/searchresults.aspx?u=2434</A></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8339999100717058079?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-2468847604015357102010-08-06T12:13:00.002-04:002010-08-06T12:21:36.596-04:00<p>How bad is the Semantic Abyss for the Semantic Web? Well, it is so bad that the process of trying to find or construct an ontology has been dubbed <em><a href="http://esw.w3.org/Ontology_Dowsing">ontology dowsing</a></em>]. Really. Seriously. It is that bad. The web page for <a title="http://esw.w3.org/Ontology_Dowsing CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://esw.w3.org/Ontology_Dowsing">Ontology Dowsing</a> tells us:</p> <blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"> <p><em>At the moment, the methods used in practice to locate an adequate vocabulary for describing one's data in RDF are more akin to dowsing than to an educated, technically-guided choice, supported by scientific tools and methodologies. While the situation is improving with the progress of Semantic Web search engines and better education, oftentimes data publishers still rely on informal criteria such as word-of-mouth, reputation or follow-your-nose strategies.</em></p> <p><em>This page tries to identify methods, tools, applications, websites or communities that can help Linked Data publishers to discover or build the right vocabulary they need.</em></p></blockquote> <p>The web page provides references to:</p> <ol> <li>Lists of ontologies </li><li>Search engines </li><li>Repositories </li><li>Mailing lists/online communities </li><li>Ontology Editors </li><li>Evaluation </li><li>Related Events, Projects, etc.</li></ol> <p>That's a good start, but the bottom line is that automatic search for ontologies is still a hard AI problem.</p> <p>What I want to see is a relatively simple tool that lets me describe my data as I see it, including example data, and then goes off and tries to match my ontological structure and data examples with existing ontologies and data and then suggests possible ontologies. A further step would be to then automatically generate an ontology alignment mapping (inferences) so that my data can then appear to the world as if structured in known ontologies. In some cases I might want to move to a known ontology, but in other cases my ontology may be "better" or maybe just a more convenient <em>shorthand</em> that works well for me. Alas, my model is not "aligned" with current reality. Hence, another manifestation of <em>The Semantic Abyss</em>.</p> <p>-- <a title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-246884760401535710?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-29932905610179209562010-06-15T18:33:00.001-04:002010-06-15T18:33:24.564-04:00<P><FONT face=Calibri>Doing a Google search of "<STRONG>The news makes the news</STRONG>" uncovered this interesting item<A href="http://www.streettech.com/bcp/BCPgraf/Glossary/gloss4.html#Simulacra"></A>:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><FONT face=Calibri><STRONG><EM>Simulacra</EM></STRONG></FONT></P> <P><EM><FONT face=Calibri>Stephen Tyler (the Deconstructionist, not the lead signer for Aerosmith) describes the simulacrum thus:</FONT></EM></P> <P><EM><FONT face=Calibri>"Where modernism focused on the central notion of representation, of the substitution of appearance, of a copy for an original version, post-modernism speaks of 'simulacra,' of models, of simulations, of constructed realities, of appearance as reality. The post-modernist simulacra undermine the notion of fundamental difference between reality and appearance, so we no longer think of 'models of reality' but in 'models as reality.' Simulacra do not re-present a prior or original presentation of the real, they are the real."</FONT></EM></P> <P><EM><FONT face=Calibri>I saw a cartoon recently which perfectly illustrates the idea of simulacra: A TV camera is sitting in an easy chair watching television. A cable comes out of the camera and goes into the back of the TV set that the camera is watching. This cutting out of the "middle man," of self-simulation, is the essence of simulacra.</FONT></EM></P> <P><EM><FONT face=Calibri>Of course the best example of simulacrum is the evening news. <STRONG>The news makes the News makes the news</STRONG>. CNN reports on the activities of Sadam Hussein, while Sadam watches CNN to find out what he's doing.</FONT></EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr><FONT face=Calibri>"The news" purports to represent a reasonably accurate account of some event that transpired, but this "image" by definition is a somewhat inaccurate representation of what actually and exactly&nbsp;happened. Even live video and audio doesn't give you the complete picture or context. It is only an approximation.</FONT></P> <P dir=ltr><FONT face=Calibri>Even beyond the truth and accuracy and completeness&nbsp;of the details of what happened, the higher-level abstraction of what the event was or is&nbsp;categorically and what it "means" and its "significance" are open to debate. And context&nbsp;is both debatable and&nbsp;subject to&nbsp;purely subjective definition (e.g., what to "connect" the event to.)&nbsp;I would simply note that it seems as though a lot of people intentionally turn to "the news" media, whether a trusted "news anchor" on TV or a cherished newspaper (or web site),&nbsp;for... "analysis" that offers up interpretation of the actual news (the observable details) to provide meaning, context, and significance. Just the title of the "news story" alone can be very telling about how it is being "spun."&nbsp;"The news" can very quickly take on a life of its own that can be quite distinct from the reality that it purports to represent.</FONT></P> <P dir=ltr><FONT face=Calibri>But, which do people really want? Do they want the boring details or the juicy story concocted with the details being only the starting point? I'll take the boring details any day, but it appears that most people prefer an elaborated story, no matter how far it diverges from objective reality.</FONT></P> <P dir=ltr><FONT face=Calibri>So, this is a central problem with <EM>facts</EM>: the degree to which they <EM>represent</EM> reality, even if the <EM>intent</EM> of the observer and reporter is absolutely pure.</FONT></P> <P dir=ltr><FONT face=Calibri>Maybe we simply have to accept the fact that all facts are subjective no matter how objective they seem or purport to be.</FONT></P> <P dir=ltr><FONT face=Calibri>Could somebody remind me why I call this <EM>The Semantic Abyss</EM>?</FONT></P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2993290561017920956?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-41176082014864152902010-04-09T23:43:00.001-04:002010-04-09T23:43:59.491-04:00<P>How dumb could a software agent be and still be considered an <EM>intelligent agent</EM>, presuming that it can communicate with and take advantage of the services of other, more intelligent software agents?</P> <P>This still begs the question of how we define or measure the intelligence of a specific software agent. Do we mean the raw, native intelligence contained wholly within that agent, or the <EM>effective intelligence</EM> of that agent as seen from outside of that agent and with no knowledge as to <EM>how</EM> the agent accomplishes its acts of intelligence?</P> <P>We can speak of the degree to which a specific agent <EM>leverages</EM> the intelligence of other agents. Whether we can truly measure and quantify this leverage is another matter entirely.</P> <P>In humans we see the effect that each of us can take advantage of the knowledge (and hence to some degree the intelligence) of others. Still, we also speak of the intelligence of the individual.</P> <P>Maybe a difference is that with software agents, they are much more likely to be highly interconnected at a very intimate level, compared to normal humans, so that agents would typically operate as part of a <EM>multi-mind</EM> at a deeper level rather than as individuals loosely operating in <EM>social</EM> groups as humans do. Or, maybe it is a spectrum and we might have reasons for choosing to design or constrain groups of agents to work with varying degrees of interconnectivity, dependence, and autonomy.</P> <P>So, maybe the answer to the question is that each agent can be extremely dumb or at least <EM>simple-minded</EM>, provided that it is interconnected with other agents into a sufficiently interconnected multi-mind.</P> <P>But even that answer begs the question, leading us to ponder what the minimal degree of interconnectivity is&nbsp;that can&nbsp;<EM>sustain intelligence</EM>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4117608201486415290?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-32690922361067270872010-04-09T23:41:00.001-04:002010-04-09T23:41:38.718-04:00<P>How dumb could a software agent be and still be considered intelligent, presuming that it can communicate with and take advantage of the services of other, more intelligent software agents?</P> <P>This still begs the question of how we define or measure the intelligence of a specific software agent. Do we mean the raw, native intelligence contained wholly within that agent, or the <EM>effective intelligence</EM> of that agent as seen from outside of that agent and with no knowledge as to <EM>how</EM> the agent accomplishes its acts of intelligence?</P> <P>We can speak of the degree to which a specific agent <EM>leverages</EM> the intelligence of other agents. Whether we can truly measure and quantify this leverage is another matter entirely.</P> <P>In humans we see the effect that each of us can take advantage of the knowledge (and hence to some degree the intelligence) of others. Still, we also speak of the intelligence of the individual.</P> <P>Maybe a difference is that with software agents, they are much more likely to be highly interconnected at a very intimate level, compared to normal humans, so that agents would typically operate as part of a <EM>multi-mind</EM> at a deeper level rather than as individuals loosely operating in <EM>social</EM> groups as humans do. Or, maybe it is a spectrum and we might have reasons for choosing to design or constrain groups of agents to work with varying degrees of interconnectivity, dependence, and autonomy.</P> <P>So, maybe the answer to the question is that each agent can be extremely dumb or at least <EM>simple-minded</EM>, provided that it is interconnected with other agents into a sufficiently interconnected multi-mind.</P> <P>But even that answer begs the question, leading us to ponder what the minimal degree of interconnectivity is&nbsp;that can&nbsp;<EM>sustain intelligence</EM>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3269092236106727087?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-70852680019705683592010-04-07T18:21:00.001-04:002010-04-07T18:21:44.022-04:00<P>We encounter all manner of statements, beliefs, facts, and claims&nbsp;which we assert are either true or not true, or might be true or might be false. If a statement is true, how do we <EM>know</EM> it. Can we <EM>prove</EM> that it is true or false? Do we have <EM>evidence</EM> that it is true or false. What does it mean to say that we have <EM>proof</EM> or that we have <EM>evidence</EM>?</P> <P><EM>Truth</EM> is our ultimate objective as seekers of knowledge and wisdom. Whether we ever <EM>achieve</EM> truth is usually a matter of <EM>debate</EM>.</P> <P>A <EM>proof</EM> or our ability to <EM>prove</EM> a statement, belief, fact, conclusion, assertion, or claim is some collection of knowledge and artifacts which when viewed by an independent, objective, competent observer with the necessary expertise would lead that observer to <EM>conclude</EM> that the claim is "true beyond all doubt." That's quite a tall order. In fact, except in pure mathematics or particular bureaucratic institutions, it is essentially an impossible objective. In truth, the best we can usually hope for is to <EM>approximate</EM> a proof of a claim. Each of us&nbsp;and each of our social and political institutions has a <EM>subjective</EM> right to define our own <EM>criteria </EM>for what <EM>standards</EM> we wish to <EM>accept</EM> for proof of any particular claim. Different individuals and institutions can differ on what proofs they accept as fact.</P> <P><EM>Evidence</EM> is basically anything, such as an observation, measurement, calculation, document, physical object, reasoning, knowledge, etc.&nbsp;that <EM>supports</EM> a claim, or, alternatively, anything that&nbsp;<EM>undermines</EM> a claim. Generally, evidence by itself does not necessarily <EM>prove</EM> (or disprove) a claim, but can help to <EM>guide</EM> us in the direction of strengthening or weakening our <EM>confidence</EM> in a claim. If we collect enough evidence of enough strength, we may in fact eventually be able to confidently assert that we are able to prove or disprove a claim beyond our own doubts. Maybe, but not necessarily. Evidence does not per se have to be able to prove or disprove a claim for us to assert that it <EM>supports</EM> or <EM>undermines</EM> a claim. Evidence does not have to be strong and convincing; it may merely be weak and flimsy, or maybe even <EM>irrelevant</EM>. The only real requirement is that evidence is <EM>offered</EM> to support or dispute a claim.</P> <P>We could use the analogy of a <EM>destination</EM> and a <EM>journey</EM> to that destination. We seek to arrive at a proof. Evidence is the collection of individual steps along the way to that destination. We can, to some degree, measure our progress on our journey. At some point we <EM>may</EM> be able to confidently conclude that we have in fact <EM>arrived</EM> at the destination, that truth has been obtained.</P> <P>As a final note, even an <EM>accepted</EM> proof may not necessarily be the definitive achievement of truth. People may in fact justifiably believe in a proof, but there may be a flaw in their assumptions, observations, measurements, analysis, calculations, or reasoning. People may not initially be aware of any such flaws, but as our minds, knowledge, and technology advance, flaws may become apparent. Then, suddenly, our knowledge and its proof may be overturned. Much of the evidence itself may still be just as valid as before, but our interpretation, integration, and induction of conclusions based on that evidence may be different.</P> <P>In short, constantly seek evidence that supports or undermines claims and be careful to leap too quickly to conclusions and acceptance of proof, and always be ready for the sudden appearance of new evidence or new ways of thinking about and working with existing evidence that may undermine an existing proof or in fact support a new proof.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7085268001970568359?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-88268517303818338882010-03-31T07:15:00.001-04:002010-03-31T07:15:18.851-04:00<P>There is an old saying that "<EM>Philosophy bakes no bread</EM>", implying that philosophy has no significant practical value, but I disagree, at least somewhat. I do agree that a large portion of what is called "philosophy", especially as practiced in modern times,&nbsp;is rather disjoint from progress in the real world, but a significant portion of philosophy, especially in a historical context is and has been extremely valuable, and eminently practical.</P> <P>Early philosophy was really the precursor of a lot of modern science and logic. Basically, early philosophy studied and promoted the kind of disciplined and structured thought that is needed for virtually all modern disciplines, from mathematics, science, and engineering to law and our social and political systems.</P> <P>Another way of saying this is that over time, every modern discipline and social system&nbsp;<EM>borrowed</EM> concepts, methods, and techniques from early philosophy. That is an understatement; every modern discipline and social system is <EM>based</EM> on the products of philosophy.&nbsp;Without the early works of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato, and the enlightened efforts of Hume, Locke, and Rousseau, among countless other brilliant philosophers over the centuries, we would not have much of what we call modern in the modern world.</P> <P>The simple fact is that all modern disciplines <EM>absorbed </EM>concepts from philosophy over the centuries so effectively that the concepts are considered part of those disciplines rather than being <EM>owned</EM> by&nbsp;the "discipline" called philosophy.</P> <P>Critical thinking is, well, <EM>critical</EM> to analyzing the facts in any discipline. The world can be a complex and confusing place. Winnowing truth from fiction and relevance from irrelevance can be a very difficult proposition even on a good day. Technology can certainly help as a tool, but all tools must be used properly to be effective. Critical thinking is essential to guiding us to making practical and workable decisions from mushy and vague raw data.</P> <P>A very pragmatic issue is that a lot of difficult questions are so poorly or vaguely phrased or framed so that it simply is not practical to even begin to answer the questions in a practical and workable manner&nbsp;until a deep and broad philosophical analysis can tell us what the questions&nbsp;are really all about. Answering inappropriate interpretations of questions can certainly lead to answers or solutions that do not meet the original <EM>needs</EM> that the questions may have been intended to address.</P> <P>Another simple fact is that the adoption of the concepts of philosophy has been so thorough over the centuries that we have reached the stage where the rate of adoption of the remaining un-adopted concepts of philosophy&nbsp;is very slow or so slow that the average person simply cannot see it, even if they look very hard. But, as they say, appearances can be deceiving.</P> <P>It is also true that a lot of "modern" philosophy has gotten so esoteric and so apparently disjoint from apparent reality that most people see philosophy as being <EM>completely disconnected</EM> from reality, even if that is not completely the case.</P> <P>The truth is a bit more complex. Granted a lot of philosophy does <EM>appear</EM> disconnected from reality and maybe a lot of the time that is the case, but just as often it is simply that philosophy can <EM>run well ahead of the times</EM>. Politicians may not be ready to pass reasonable and workable laws permitting doctors to "pull the plug on granny" or define precisely how privacy and trust should function in online computer networks, but philosophers and leading edge experts in all disciplines can and do spend serious time discussing these kinds of issues seriously. They are, to put it simply, <EM>being philosophical</EM>. That is philosophy in action. That is <EM>philosophy baking bread</EM>. It may not be bread that the average person can eat today, but it is bread that the average person will be taking for granted somewhere down the road in coming years, decades, and centuries.</P> <P>At the extreme, even the nature of existence itself is still an unsolved problem, with quantum mechanics, string theory, and "god particles" a matter of the kind of speculation and debate normally reserved exclusively by the kind of philosophers who supposedly do not bake bread.</P> <P>In computer science there is an old saying that AI (Artificial intelligence) is just all of the things that we do not know how to do yet.</P> <P>I would suggest a similar statement, that philosophy is where we hold preliminary discussions about the toughest unsolved problems of humanity or new ways of thinking that can be applied to those problems.</P> <P>Philosophy is less concerned with what to do in life, but more about how to think about values and&nbsp;the processes of thought and action so that we can divine better&nbsp;systems of values and better&nbsp;<EM>techniques</EM> for thought and action that can then be <EM>applied</EM> in new and novel ways to solve problems in more innovative ways than were readily available to us in the past.</P> <P>Put in more pragmatic terms, to be sure, philosophers do not directly bake break or tell people how to bake bread, but rather offer people new and novel approaches to how to think about new approaches to baking bread and how to leap ahead and think about meeting biological and social needs that bread was intended to address in the first place. Philosophy can guide us in forward thinking about ethical and social concerns related to global poverty and global health.</P> <P>In short, there is still plenty of mileage to be gotten from philosophy, especially in leading edge research efforts of virtually all disciplines, especially in situations where significant uncertainty,&nbsp;lack of determinism, and ethical, social, and political concerns outstrip classical mechanistic approaches to problem solving.</P> <P>So, yes, philosophers can certainly seem to be lost in the clouds, but a large part of that is because that is where some of the hardest problems facing humanity lie. So many of us remain so&nbsp;<EM>lost</EM> in the mundane concerns of daily life and the rote details of&nbsp;our disciplines&nbsp;that we continue to stumble through life precisely because we do not have the vantage point from the clouds that would enable us to distinguish the forest from the trees.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8826851730381833888?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-71815791888372158262010-03-22T22:08:00.001-04:002010-03-22T22:08:10.918-04:00<P>I have a simplified model of the <EM>progression of knowledge</EM>. Knowledge somehow needs to start somewhere as <EM>informal knowldge</EM> or <EM>tentative knowledge</EM>&nbsp;and eventually end up as <EM>formal knowledge</EM>, something seriously believed to be <EM>true</EM>.</P> <P>In my simplified model knowledge progresses (loosely)&nbsp;in the following incremental steps:</P> <OL> <LI>An <EM>observation</EM> or a <EM>thought</EM>, something that just <EM>pops</EM> into your head.</LI> <LI>An <EM>idea</EM>, something you <EM>think</EM> about.</LI> <LI>A <EM>concept</EM> or <EM>belief</EM>, something you have given some <EM>serious thought</EM> to and <EM>believe</EM> is likely to be valid and true.</LI> <LI>A <EM>conjecture</EM>, a relatively formalized and structured form of a concept.</LI> <LI>A <EM>theory</EM>, a fully formalized version of one or more conjectures.</LI> <LI>A <EM>hypothesis</EM>, a prediction based on a theory that can be tested to prove or disprove part or all&nbsp;of a theory.</LI> <LI>A <EM>law</EM>,&nbsp;<EM>conclusion</EM>, or <EM>generalization</EM> based on the theory and tested through hypotheses, experiments, experience, and the passage of time.</LI></OL> <P>So, one or more <EM>statements</EM> can be categorized as to <EM>how developed</EM> they are in my <EM>knowledge progression</EM>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7181579188837215826?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-67625000420155370712010-03-22T17:47:00.000-04:002010-03-22T17:48:05.418-04:00<P>From the very moment we first open our eyes or first hear some sound or first touch anything we <EM>feel</EM> that we are <EM>experiencing</EM> the world around us and that we <EM>know</EM> that world, reality, but do we? Given enough experience, we gradually <EM>realize</EM> that some if not many of our earlier <EM>perceptions</EM> are not completely in accord with reality as it <EM>really exists</EM>. So, the most basic conception of the <EM>Semantic Abyss</EM> is that we have two worlds to deal with: 1) the <EM>real</EM> world, reality itself, and 2)&nbsp;the <EM>perceived</EM> world, our mental model of what we <EM>think</EM> or <EM>imagine</EM>&nbsp;the real world is.</P> <P>We actually have a third and fourth world to deal with: 3) a <EM>model</EM> of the real world constructed from conceptions based on our perceptions&nbsp;that we can express to others, and 4) the <EM>models </EM>of the world that others have constructed and endeavored to communicate to us.</P> <P>Somehow, we merge, mesh, and blend these three models and derive a <EM>composite model </EM>of the real world.</P> <P>Over time and with enough input with enough diversity we come up with ever-better models that better represent the reality of the real world, but despite our best efforts, there will always be a lingering <EM>Semantic Abyss</EM> between the real world as it really is and our best mental model of what the world is.</P> <P>Another issue is that even when we are fortunate enough to establish a workable one-to-one correspondence between the real world and our mental model of the real world, there is no guarantee that each correspondence of reality and mental model is <EM>accurate</EM> and rich enough to adequately model the full complexity of the real world.</P> <P>A final issue is that we wish to share our models with computers and other artificial entities (e.g., robots which seek to move around and interact with the real world) so that computer programs can <EM>make sense</EM> of the real world, either in terms of recorded data or real-time sensor data.</P> <P>In short, we deal with four models of the real world:</P> <OL> <LI>The real world <EM>as it is </EM>that we can observe and interact and experiment&nbsp;with.</LI> <LI>Our <EM>perception and internal conception </EM>of the real world.</LI> <LI>The <EM>communicable model </EM>of the real world&nbsp;that <EM>we share </EM>with each other.</LI> <LI><EM>Computer models</EM> of the real world which can be readily manipulated by computer programs.</LI></OL> <P>There are plenty of gaps between those four models of reality that we need to cope with when dealing with <EM>knowledge</EM> of the real world.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6762500042015537071?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-46388412750530020872010-03-18T18:34:00.001-04:002010-03-18T18:34:55.837-04:00<P>Given that there is a <EM>semantic gap</EM> that I have been referring to as the <EM>Semantic Abyss</EM>, how exactly do we go about <EM>bridging</EM> the gap? My overall position remains that the gap is far too great to completely bridge now, or at any time in the near future. That said, it is worth considering the many ways in which we can partially bridge the gap and what potholes, barriers, and mine fields exist in the remainder of the gap. I will not endeavor to do all of that right now and right here, but some examples are worth considering.</P> <P>First, we have to acknowledge that it is <EM>virtually impossible to bridge the semantic gap as a general proposition</EM> and that at best we can only hope to <EM>approximate</EM> bridging the gap. Ray Kurzweil's vision of a <EM>Singularity</EM> would obviously have to complete the 100% bridging of the semantic gap by the year 2045 if not sooner, but that is far beyond the scope of my near-term interests.</P> <P>Second, we have to acknowledge that there are a <EM>multitude of semantic gaps</EM>. For example there is the semantic gap between any two individuals, we need to acknowledge that the gap differs between every distinct pair of individuals, especially depending on how much knowledge they already share.</P> <P>Third, in general, bridging the gap is a <EM>bidirectional process</EM>, not a one-way communication. For example, the more knowledgeable party has to learn at least an overview of what the less-knowledgeable party already knows and doesn't know before or as part of the process of bridging the semantic gap. As a general proposition, every party has their <EM>semantic strengths</EM> and their <EM>semantic weaknesses</EM> and bridging the semantic gap simply means a <EM>semantic balancing</EM>, so that at the end of the process they each know what the other knew. But that is only as a general proposition.</P> <P>Fourth, bridging the semantic gap is frequently and intentionally an <EM>asymmetric process</EM>, where one or more of the parties seeks a <EM>semantic advantage</EM> over the other. For example, in a negotiation or propaganda. Or even education where it is usually preferable to incrementally stage the <EM>semantic transfer</EM> rather than attempt to accomplish it all at once since the cognitive capabilities of the <EM>students</EM> are under development over an extended period of time. You could say that a typical student <EM>accepts a semantic weakness</EM> if only because of the incremental nature of education. An amateur might also accept&nbsp;a semantic weakness relative to a professional.</P> <P>As a general proposition the process of bridging the semantic gap is a <EM>learning process</EM>. As an extreme case, absolute <EM>semantic peers</EM> are "on the same page" and can communicate without any significant learning required. As a practical matter even <EM>nominal semantic peers</EM> frequently are not exactly "on the same page" and miscommunication occurs until one or both parties recognizes that the peer relationship has broken down and learning is required.</P> <P><EM>Partial knowledge</EM> is a common "solution" to bridging the semantic gap. By both parties "agreeing" that not all seemingly relevant knowledge is needed in any particular situation, the semantic gap can be dramatically reduced, "by definition" (agreement.) As a specialized case, we may simply decide that computers are still far too "weak" to support full comprehension of human knowledge and decide on a <EM>structured subset</EM> of knowledge to shrink the semantic gap to a manageable size.</P> <P><EM>Hardwired knowledge</EM> is another common solution, especially, but not exclusively, with artificial entities. The entity with the hardwired knowledge doesn't really "know" what it is dealing with in a very deep and meaningful sense, but "knows" at least deep enough so that a relatively meaningful conversation can occur.</P> <P>(To be continued, eventually.)</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4638841275053002087?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-19229628509080067372010-03-17T19:24:00.001-04:002010-03-17T19:24:33.340-04:00<P>So, what do I know? Literally.&nbsp;Or what do you know? And what do we collectively know?&nbsp;Even if&nbsp;we sincerely wanted to represent everything that&nbsp;we know and&nbsp;are very diligent about going about the task, it is still virtually impossible for&nbsp;us to adequately convey to anyone, person or computer or simply in written word, all knowledge that&nbsp;we possess, either individually or collectively. At best, we can <EM>approximate</EM> what we know.</P> <P>One of the biggest problems is dealing with <EM>tacit knowledge</EM> where we are clearly able to perform various tasks but are literally unable to express in natural language exactly how we are able to perform those tasks.</P> <P>Another big problem is that most people do not have <EM>photographic memories</EM> and are frequently unable to recall knowledge on demand even though in some other situation or simply after the passage of time&nbsp;or if prompted their recall may come much more readily or with more fidelity.</P> <P>There are many other difficulties with any of us being able to fully express the totality of our knowledge.</P> <P>The real problem is that even if we <EM>could</EM> express everything that we know, there is no reliable way for any of the rest of us to read or view or listen to those expressions and have a 100% certainty that we understood what the other person intended that they expressed.</P> <P>So, we have these distinct, although overlapping collections of knowledge:</P> <UL> <LI>What do you or I know by ourselves</LI> <LI>What personal knowledge can we consciously contemplate</LI> <LI>What personal knowledge can we adequately <EM>express</EM> in natural language or any other <EM>knowledge artifact</EM></LI> <LI>What personal knowledge do we <EM>choose</EM> and <EM>intend</EM>&nbsp;to express</LI> <LI>What did we actually express relative to what we intended to express</LI> <LI>What portion of our expressed personal knowledge can be&nbsp;reliably <EM>deciphered</EM> by others</LI> <LI>How others <EM>interpret</EM> what they read or hear that we have expressed</LI> <LI>How much of what they have interpreted can be remembered and recalled and with what reliability and accuracy</LI> <LI>How reliably and accurately can others <EM>relate</EM> our knowledge that they have acquired to a third party</LI> <LI>How much acquired knowledge of another (or others)&nbsp;and our own personal knowledge are coalesced into <EM>shared knowledge</EM></LI> <LI>How much shared knowledge can be reliably and accurately shared with other parties</LI> <LI>Our ability to distinguish which portions of knowledge came from whom or among whom it is shared</LI></UL> <P>And that is just between two real people. Add more people, many more people. And add the many combinations of two or more people, the groupings of people we find in the real world.&nbsp;Layer onto that&nbsp;the huge issue of how to represent human knowledge in a form that artificial entities can adequately process. Obviously that is what we want to try to do in a full-blown <EM>knowledge web</EM>.</P> <P>And even after we have done all of that, we must acknowledge and cope with the fact that our knowledge is a living thing, subject to constant and continual change.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1922962850908006737?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-58604972755489152322010-03-16T17:41:00.001-04:002010-03-16T17:41:28.538-04:00<P>Although my primary interest is in representation of knowledge, it makes sense to focus attention on <EM>how</EM> knowledge is <EM>generated</EM> and <EM>used</EM> by <EM>sentient entities</EM>, whether they are real people or <EM>artificial sentient entities</EM> such as robots and software agents.</P> <P>I propose a fairly simple model of the structure of a <EM>sentient entity</EM> in terms of functional capabilities that somehow relate to consumption and production of&nbsp;data, information, knowledge, or wisdom:</P> <UL> <LI>Sense, observe, measure entities (both sentient and non-sentient) and phenomena&nbsp;in the environment</LI> <LI>Feel, sense (at a higher level, processing what was sensed at the raw sensory level), react - emotions, instinctive processes</LI> <LI>Remember and recall</LI> <LI>Think - perceive, analyze, conceive, speculate, contemplate, believe, desire, intend, plan, decide, control</LI> <LI>Express feelings, emotions, reactions (relatively unidirectional)</LI> <LI>Communicate mental state, record&nbsp;information</LI> <LI>Act, behave</LI> <LI>Interact with other sentient entities in relatively intense conversational mode</LI> <LI>Intuit</LI> <LI>Read minds [Really? Well, at least conceptually.]</LI></UL> <P>Data, information, and knowledge flow into each of these functional capabilities either from the environment or other functional capabilities, is processed to some degree and some new form of data, information, or knowledge is generated and made available to other functional capabilities or the environment.</P> <P>The representation of data, information, and knowledge within any of these functional capabilities may or may not be comparable or synchronized with external representations of that data, information, and knowledge in a Semantic Web or Knowledge Web. There may be some boundary lines delineating <EM>internal</EM> versus <EM>external</EM> flows or availability of any or all of the data, information, and knowledge.</P> <P>Note: I am not sure how the information from a neurological brain scan fits into this model. Maybe it is simply an indistinct <EM>composite</EM> or a&nbsp;<EM>composition of neurological state information</EM>. Conceptually, the same issue can occur with an artificial sentient entity, by examining raw data in state variables (e.g., a raw memory dump). Whether this might have some utility is unknown, but it could have some analogy to a <EM>signature</EM> such as is done with a computer virus scan.</P> <P>One could also view the <EM>DNA</EM> of a sentient entity, or the <EM>code</EM> of an artificial sentient entity as data, information, and knowledge&nbsp;as well.</P> <P>Ditto for the <EM>biography</EM> or history of the sentient entity as well.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5860497275548915232?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-67780300889291311262010-03-15T14:44:00.000-04:002010-03-15T14:45:07.538-04:00<P>Only the most mindless simpleton believes that the future is predetermined and that everything that happens does so because it was "destined" or predetermined&nbsp;to happen. Most of us can&nbsp;agree that <EM>predestination</EM> is not an adequate account of reality. But that leaves open the general question of what <EM>determines</EM> the future or even any outcome in the present? If hard, full <EM>determinism</EM> does not preordain all outcomes, what model for the <EM>progression of reality </EM>should we be using? Just for the record, I will state my simplified model of what determines the future.</P> <P>Every event or outcome or change of state in reality (the universe) is determined by <EM>some combination of factors</EM>, even if we may not be able to clearly determine what those factors may specifically be in any given instance. The categories of these factors are:</P> <OL> <LI>Natural progression. Law-like behavior such as gravity, an object rolling down a hill, hot air rising, momentum, orbiting bodies, or the life cycle of living things. Or something as simple as evaluating a mathematical equation across its domain. Outcome is very predictable and causality is well-defined. <LI>Specific causal factors. Forces, objects, actors, drives, etc. which are reasonably "clear", including the proverbial "smoking gun." Outcome may be moderately predictable and causality relatively easily determined. <LI>Non-specific causal factors. Something influenced or caused a change even if we have difficulty or are even unable to determine what the causal events actually were. Outcome has low or no predictability and any apparent causality will tend to be mostly speculative in nature. <LI>Random variability. Ranging from quantum indeterminism and radioactive decay&nbsp;to statistical, stochastic, and chaotic&nbsp;processes. Even if we recreate the exact prior situation (say, in a parallel universe), the outcome could vary. Even omniscience and omnipotence&nbsp;would not determine the outcome. No predictability other than possibly a statistical distribution. Causality may sometimes&nbsp;be established by the nature of the event (e.g., radioactive decay), but may be completely indeterminate (e.g., judging free will decision vs. known bias.) <LI>Free will. Choice by a sentient entity (e.g., person or computer) unconstrained&nbsp;by any factors.&nbsp;Various factors may <EM>inform</EM> or <EM>influence</EM> or <EM>guide</EM> or even <EM>bias</EM>&nbsp;choice, but ultimately there is an <EM>act of free will</EM> making the decision. May or may not be predictable. Causality may be very difficult if not impossible to establish, although a sentient&nbsp;entity might communicate its decision-making process or a brain scan might suggest whether free will was a significant factor or not. <LI>Intervention by a deity.&nbsp;Not everyone believes in a God, but those who do might find the intentions of a God a more credible explanation for events and outcomes&nbsp;than other, more worldly factors.</LI></OL> <P>Now, I have attempted to summarize a model for what determines the future (or caused some past outcome)&nbsp;in the <EM>real world</EM> for <EM>real people</EM>. That said, is this same model valid for any or all <EM>virtual worlds</EM>? I think so, but not necessarily. Some categories of factors may not be relevant in some specific virtual worlds, but are there other categories that are operative in all or some specific virtual worlds but not operative in our real world? Conceivably one could define such a virtual world, although I have not personally heard of one. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to speculate what additional categories of factors might conceivably apply to the Semantic Web and future Knowledge Webs, especially as artificial sentient entities (software agents, robots, etc.) begin to proliferate.</P> <P>As a final note, all of this ties in with <EM>provenance</EM> as well, a topic of emerging interest in the Semantic Web, although currently the Semantic Web is more interested in the <EM>who</EM> of a change in data rather than some deeper <EM>why</EM>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6778030088929131126?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-52251469878730281462010-03-07T22:51:00.000-05:002010-03-07T22:52:45.558-05:00<P>I&nbsp;just finished&nbsp;reading an essay on <EM>Edge</EM> by noted computer scientist David Gelernter entitled "<A href="http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge313.html">Time to Start Taking the Internet Seriously</A>" which basically argues for his concept of <EM>lifestreams</EM> as a better model for publishing and accessing information than today's <EM>web</EM> model. Rather that organizing information in a <EM>spatial</EM> form, he recommends that we think about and organize information along the <EM>time</EM> dimension. As he puts it:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>The Internet's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web, where time instead of space is the organizing principle&nbsp;-- instead of many stained-glass windows, instead of information laid out in space, like vegetables at a market&nbsp;-- the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time. The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together: the whole world telling its own story.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>He proceeds to describe the nature of the problem and how lifestreams will address it:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>13. The traditional web site is static, but the Internet specializes in flowing, changing information. The "velocity of information" is important&nbsp;-- not just the facts but their rate and direction of flow. Today's typical website is like a stained glass window, many small panels leaded together. There is no good way to change stained glass, and no one expects it to change. So it's not surprising that the Internet is now being overtaken by a different kind of cyberstructure.</EM></P> <P><EM>14. The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool.</EM></P> <P><EM>15. Every month, more and more information surges through the Cybersphere in lifestreams — some called blogs, "feeds," "activity streams," "event streams," Twitter streams. All these streams are specialized examples of the cyberstructure we called a lifestream in the mid-1990s: a stream made of all sorts of digital documents, arranged by time of creation or arrival, changing in realtime; a stream you can focus and thus turn into a different stream; a stream with a past, present and future. The future flows through the present into the past at the speed of time.</EM></P> <P><EM>16. Your own information&nbsp;-- all your communications, documents, photos, videos&nbsp;-- including "cross network" information&nbsp;-- phone calls, voice messages, text messages&nbsp;-- will be stored in a lifestream in the Cloud.</EM></P> <P><EM>17. There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together, but it's obvious how to blend two streams. You simply shuffle them together like two decks of cards, maintaining time-order&nbsp;-- putting the earlier document first. Blending is important because we must be able to add and subtract in the Cybersphere. We add streams together by blending them. Because it's easy to blend any group of streams, it's easy to integrate stream-structured sites so we can treat the group as a unit, not as many separate points of activity; and integration is important to solving the information overload problem. We subtract streams by searching or focusing. Searching a stream for "snow" means that I subtract every stream-element that doesn't deal with snow. Subtracting the "not snow" stream from the mainstream yields a "snow" stream. Blending streams and searching them are the addition and subtraction of the new Cybersphere.</EM></P> <P><EM>18. Nearly all flowing, changing information on the Internet will move through streams. You will be able to gather and blend together all the streams that interest you. Streams of world news or news about your friends, streams that describe prices or auctions or new findings in any field, or traffic, weather, markets&nbsp;-- they will all be gathered and blended into one stream. Then your own personal lifestream will be added. The result is your mainstream: different from all others; a fast-moving river of all the digital information you care about.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In short:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side, so that time instead of space is the main axis.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>There is much more to his model for information in the "<EM>Cybersphere</EM>", but time-based lifestreams are&nbsp;his core starting point.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5225146987873028146?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-78775103914802578372010-03-07T19:56:00.000-05:002010-03-07T19:57:13.780-05:00<P>I was reading an essay on <EM>Edge</EM> by noted computer scientist David Gelernter entitled "<A href="http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge313.html">Time to Start Taking the Internet Seriously</A>" and ran across a reference to the concept of information <EM>welling up</EM> in the context of his conception of <EM>lifestreams</EM>. He wrote:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Ten years ago I described the computer of the future as a "scooped-out hole in the beach where <STRONG>information from the Cybersphere wells up like seawater</STRONG>."&nbsp; Today the spread of wireless coverage and the growing power of mobile devices means that <STRONG>information does indeed well up </STRONG>almost anywhere you switch on your laptop or cellphone; and "anywhere" will be true before long.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's an interesting concept. Rather than explicitly accessing data by going to its source or explicitly searching for it, all one need do is create the proper situation (the well)&nbsp;and the data simply <EM>appears</EM> or <EM>wells up</EM>, welcomed but not directly or explicitly bidden per se.</P> <P>So, we have a collection of concepts here, in my view:</P> <UL> <LI><EM>knowledge wells</EM> (or <EM>data wells</EM> or <EM>information wells</EM>) which are places&nbsp;where information can simply <EM>materialize</EM> (or the data equivalent)</LI> <LI><EM>knowledge welling</EM>, the incremental (or streaming or merely "seeping") <EM>appearance</EM> of data in a <EM>knowledge well</EM> (or <EM>data well</EM> or <EM>information well</EM>)</LI> <LI><EM>welled knowledge</EM> (or <EM>welled data</EM> or <EM>welled information</EM>), which is knowledge that appears in a knowledge well</LI> <LI><EM>wellable knowledge</EM> (or <EM>wellable data</EM> or <EM>wellable information</EM>), which is knowledge that is somehow prepared or packaged or published in a form that makes it readily distributable to knowledge wells.</LI></UL> <P>At a simplistic level, a knowledge well could simply be a search query directed at some data source, but to truly fulfill Gelernter's vision, something far more sophisticated is needed. What that something might be I cannot say at this time.</P> <P>Curiously, maybe there is a community collaboration angle there as well, since the term reminds me of the famous <EM><A href="http://www.well.com/">The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link</A></EM> known as <EM>The WELL</EM>. Whether or not a connection between the two concepts would make sense would depend on how specific and narrow one wants to define the terms. One could define a simple RSS feed as an <EM>information well</EM>, I suppose. One could define the Twitter public timeline as an information well. Sure, one can tap into any "conference" on The&nbsp;WELL, but then that is a fairly narrow information stream. Somehow, a Gelernteresque knowledge well would have a more global, blended un-focus, I would think.</P> <P>Thinking about how information might <EM>well up</EM> reminds me of a concept I considered years ago, something I call <EM><STRONG>GMWIMW</STRONG></EM>,&nbsp;for <EM><STRONG>Give Me What I Might Want</STRONG></EM>, a mythical filter for information on topics that I do not even know about yet. That would be at least one <EM>type</EM> of knowledge well that I would be interested in.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7877510391480257837?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-2444032875625991192010-03-03T15:27:00.000-05:002010-03-03T15:32:12.280-05:00<P>Superficially, that is the question: <EM>What is the unit of meaning?</EM> But, that one question is part of a bundle of questions, including (but not limited to):</P> <OL> <LI>What is the unit of knowledge? <LI>What is the unit of semantics? <LI>What is the unit of meaning? <LI>What is the unit of communications? <LI>What is the unit of expression? <LI>What is the unit of thought? <LI>What is the unit of facts? <LI>What is the unit of reasoning? <LI>What is the unit of objectivity? <LI>What is the unit of subjectivity? <LI>What is the unit of context? <LI>What is a unit in a holistic system?</LI></OL> <P>In natural language the obvious choices for a unit are word, sentence, phrase, and morpheme. I would lean towards word or term or sometimes phrase, but at least when it comes to foreign language translation, anything less than a sentence is questionable for <EM>capturing</EM> meaning. Sure, we can look a word up in a dictionary, but frequently we find that a word will have multiple <EM>senses</EM> and the <EM>context</EM> of a phrase, clause, or sentence is needed to decipher which sense is appropriate. Maybe this simply means that word are still an appropriate unit, but that context is needed as well, much in the way that pieces of wood and nails can be units for building, but <EM>tools</EM> such as a saw and a hammer and a plan are needed to make sense of the units.</P> <P>In the Semantic Web, we have units such as URI and literals, but it is the <EM>statement</EM> or <EM>triple</EM> as a unit of <EM>expression</EM> that seems the most useful focus. Or maybe not. An RDF statement is somewhat analogous to a natural language statement. A URI or literal string is comparable to a natural language word. The same literal can be used in multiple RDF statements, with a multiplicity of senses, each suggested by the resource and predicate of the RDF statement which contains it.</P> <P>For now, I would suggest that the word is the natural unit of meaning in natural language, and the URI is the natural unit of meaning in the Semantic Web.</P> <P>One related question that concerns me: The Semantic Web does not seem to have the concept of <EM>sense</EM> for URIs that we have in a natural language dictionary. Hmmm...</P> <P>Language, natural or otherwise, is used to convey meaning from one party to another. Meaning and knowledge exist primarily in the minds of the parties who are communicating. Actual words and sentences or expressions in natural language are <EM>knowledge artifacts</EM> rather than the actual knowledge and meaning itself. As carefully as we may try, analysis of natural language text can only approximate whatever meaning was intended by the initiator of the expression. So, in some sense, deciding on the unit for natural language text does not necessarily tell us the unit for meaning and knowledge in the human mind. Nonetheless, we need to start somewhere and the knowledge artifacts of natural language are a rich trove to start with.</P> <P>I'll stop there for now. More thought is needed.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-244403287562599119?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-52549487183429506802010-02-21T09:16:00.001-05:002010-02-21T09:16:50.572-05:00<P>A topic that I intend to do more thinking and writing about is the <EM>personal cloud</EM>, or more specifically, the <EM>personal data cloud</EM> or <EM>personal information cloud</EM>. As I was gathering my personal information to organize my FOAF profile page I began thinking about whether FOAF really was the best <EM>place</EM> to be the <EM>primary repository</EM> for this personal information of mine, or not.</P> <P>One of the things I quickly realized was that I had <EM>pulled together</EM> a variety of pieces of <EM>disparate information</EM>. In other words, my FOAF profile page was an <EM>aggregation of diverse data</EM>. I would not call my FOAF profile page itself a <EM>cloud</EM>, but I would call the un-aggregated data a cloud for sure.</P> <P>So, we have two distinct but related concepts: 1) a <EM>cloud of unaggregated data</EM>, and 2) a <EM>hub of aggregated data</EM>. We can consider aggregation or <EM>hub tools</EM> such as FOAF as <EM>cloud aggregation tools</EM>. I suppose we could speak of <EM>cloud hubs</EM> as well.</P> <P>Layered on top of that, we can consider an interconnected web of FOAF profiles (the basic original purpose of FOAF) as a <EM>FOAF cloud</EM>. A database built by crawling all or a portion of the FOAF cloud could be considered a <EM>FOAF hub</EM>. Any tool for displaying, manipulating, and navigating such a database could be considered a <EM>FOAF hub tool</EM>.</P> <P>So, this is another key concept: <EM>layering of clouds</EM>. A cloud can consist of a network or other clouds, and so on ad infinitum.</P> <P>Back to my own FOAF profile, sure, technically, my one small FOAF profile represents a small cloud itself. Technically. But what I really want to do is to represent and store each of those pieces of information as entities in their own right, separate from this <EM>specific aggregation tool</EM> of a FOAF profile. After all, there are other aggregation tools, such as vCard, LinkedIn, or just about any social networking site, or your address book or personal information manager application.</P> <P>So, this suggests that as important as aggregation tools are, we need to give a lot more consideration to how the underlying <EM>personal data cloud</EM> to conceptualized and represented. In theory, I should be able to pull my FOAF profile together 100% automatically with absolutely zero manual intervention required by simple granting a FOAF aggregation tool access to my personal data cloud. Obviously we are not there yet.</P> <P>There are two key questions here: 1) what does a personal cloud look like, and 2) where exactly does this cloud actually exist, besides in your head.</P> <P>Oh, sure, I know the conventional answer these days: It's just a <EM>Google app</EM>; Google owns all of your data - just get over it. But, to me, it seems that somehow there is something fundamentally wrong with that picture. There is a lot more to the problem, let alone the solutions, than just the one word, "Google".</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5254948718342950680?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-14063938091576035642010-02-18T18:54:00.001-05:002010-02-18T18:54:41.345-05:00<P>Now that I have my FOAF profile generator working fairly well, I see that <A href="http://xml.mfd-consult.dk/foaf/explorer/">Morten Frederiksen has a tool called&nbsp;FoaF Explorer</A> that can be used to interactively navigate a FOAF web.</P> <P>Here is my FOAF profile in FoaF Explorer:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><A href="http://xml.mfd-consult.dk/foaf/explorer/?foaf=http://opixia.com/foaf.rdf">Jack Krupansky's FOAF Profile in FoaFExplorer</A></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>There are still quite a few FOAF fields in my profile&nbsp;that I have not yet populated, but I am starting to get a critical mass.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1406393809157603564?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-23296630531934716102010-02-18T08:02:00.002-05:002010-02-18T08:42:13.738-05:00<p>I just updated my FOAF profile generator to include my "based_near" location. I do not have a GPS device, but I found a web site by Pierre Gorissen, <a href="http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocation.php">Google Maps Latitude, Longitude Popup</a>, that lets you scroll and zoom a Google map until you visually find and click on your location and then it displays the longitude and latitude of the clicked location. That let me get close enough to click on my apartment building (actually, my apartment itself since I am on the top floor of the building.)</p><p>So, here is where I am as a Flickr tag:</p><blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><p><em>geotagged geo:lat=40.756425 geo:lon=-73.971575</em></p></blockquote><p>And, in FOAF RDF XML (abbreviated):</p><blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><p><em>&lt;foaf:based_near&gt;<br /> &lt;geo:Point&gt;<br /> &lt;geo:lat&gt;40.756425&lt;/geo:lat&gt;<br /> &lt;geo:long&gt;-73.971575&lt;/geo:long&gt;<br /> &lt;/geo:Point&gt;<br />&lt;/foaf:based_near&gt;</em></p></blockquote><p>-- <a href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2329663053193471610?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-22867585290764638832010-02-17T15:43:00.001-05:002010-02-17T15:43:44.724-05:00<P>I have been busy for the past couple of weeks starting to write some semi-serious Semantic Web code in Java. Most recently I have been parsing, manipulating, and generating&nbsp;Semantic Web RDF data using the Jena open source library. Although I have already gotten some code up and running using Jena (generating and writing my own FOAF profile and crawling FOAF profiles), I still have not yet finished reading the basic Jena tutorial: <A href="http://jena.sourceforge.net/tutorial/RDF_API/">An Introduction to RDF and the Jena RDF API</A> by Brian McBride, Daniel Boothby, and Chris Dollin.</P> <P>This tutorial is quite readable and does encourage you to jump off and do some actual code prototyping, which is what I have been doing a lot of. Unfortunately, for all the code I have written, I have still not read the turorial front to back. But now that I have so much code under my belt, filling in the many knowledge gaps is a higher priority. In any case, I recommend the tutorial, both for Jena and as a basic intro to RDF itself.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2286758529076463883?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-85175660902693500662010-01-26T17:57:00.000-05:002010-01-26T17:58:56.596-05:00<P>I just stumbled across <EM><A href="http://www.perlrdf.org/">The Perl RDF project</A></EM>. As the web site says:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>The Perl RDF project hopes to address these issues:</EM></P> <OL> <LI><EM>Publish an official API for storage, parsing and serializing modules.</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Produce a set of base classes for representing common RDF objects such as statements and nodes (resources, literals, blank nodes).</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Produce patches to existing RDF tools to support these APIs, subclassing where appropriate.</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Produce a test suite for storage, parsing, serializing, statement and node classes.</EM></LI></OL></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That includes SPARQL support, a triple store, a web crawler for RDF resources, and parsing of RDFa.</P> <P>And, there is&nbsp;a mailing list:&nbsp;<A href="http://lists.perlrdf.org/listinfo/dev">perlrdf mailing-list</A>.</P> <P>Sounds like an effort to keep an eye on. No matter what your preferred <EM>heavyweight</EM> RDF Semantic Web toolset is, lightweight Perl hacking is clearly a useful adjunct.</P> <P>-- Jack Krupansky</P> <P>&nbsp;</P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8517566090269350066?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-34935153747997010282010-01-26T15:53:00.000-05:002010-01-26T15:55:27.353-05:00<P>I was actually doing a little (very little) Semantic Web programming yesterday. I did not even realize it until I was done. I was tracking down a nasty time stamp issue with some client code that uses&nbsp;the file/web crawling features of <A href="http://aperture.sourceforge.net/">Aperture (1.4)</A>, which uses <A href="http://semanticweb.org/wiki/RDF2Go">RDF2Go</A> under the hood for storing file names and time stamps. Normally that is all transparent and problem-free, but I was doing something tricky (if people are paying <EM>me</EM> to do something, you can bet that there is something out of the ordinary involved.) To track down the problem I needed to verify the exact file names that Aperture was tracking. To do that, I needed to access and dump the Aperture <EM>repository</EM>.</P> <P>Ultimately, I solved my problem fairly easily, but seeing <EM>and understanding</EM> what was in the repository was a big help.</P> <P>I won't go into all of the gory details, but some of the concepts are worth noting.</P> <P>What is Aperture? According to&nbsp;the <A href="http://aperture.sourceforge.net/">Aperture&nbsp;home page on SourceForge</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Aperture is a Java framework for extracting and querying full-text content and metadata from various information systems (e.g. file systems, web sites, mail boxes) and the file formats (e.g. documents, images) occurring in these systems.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As I said, Aperture keeps track of those information sources using a <EM>repository</EM> based on RDF2Go. According to the <A href="http://semanticweb.org/wiki/RDF2Go">RDF2Go home page</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>RDF2Go is an abstraction over triple (and quad) stores. It allows developers to program against rdf2go interfaces and choose or change the implementation later easily.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Each RDF <EM>graph</EM> is stored as a <EM>model</EM> in RDF2Go. Each RDF2Go model has a <EM>context</EM>. Essentially the context is the <EM>name</EM> for the <EM>named graph</EM> that is stored as a model.</P> <P>An RDF2Go <EM>repository</EM> contains one or more <EM>models</EM>, also referred to as a <EM>model set</EM>. In other words, a repository can hold multiple <EM>named RDF graphs</EM>.</P> <P>And finally, an RDF2Go <EM>model</EM> consists of any number of <EM>statements</EM>, which are the actual <EM>RDF statements</EM> which comprise the named RDF graph. Each RDF statement is a <EM>triple</EM> consisting of three <EM>URIs</EM>, one for the <EM>subject</EM>, one for the <EM>predicate</EM>, and one for the <EM>object</EM> (S, P, O.) My errant file names were stored in the subject field and the time stamps in the object field. My root path for my Aperture crawl was stored as the context or model name. Ultimately,&nbsp;Aperture stored two statements for each file (one a date, the other the time stamp.)&nbsp;Iterating through the models in the model set gave me a list of the context names or my root file paths (sometimes file system paths, sometimes Web URLs.)</P> <P>What RDF2Go really is is not a data repository itself, but an <EM>abstraction</EM> that can work with a variety of repositories or so-called <EM>stores</EM>.</P> <P>The difference between a <EM>quad store</EM> and a <EM>triple store</EM> is that a triple store by itself&nbsp;represents an&nbsp;<EM>unnamed graph</EM>, while a quad store is capable of representing <EM>named graphs</EM>, with that fouth piece of information being the <EM>context</EM> or <EM>graph name</EM>. In practice, a lot of people use the terms interchangably and we tend to implicitly forgive people who refer to quad stores as triple stores.</P> <P>-- Jack Krupansky</P> <P>&nbsp;</P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3493515374799701028?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-23427068721444040772010-01-23T07:22:00.001-05:002010-01-23T07:22:52.188-05:00<P>Morton Swimmer, Senior Threat Researcher with Trend Micro, Inc.,&nbsp;has an interesting slide presentation about the use of Semantic Web technologies to analyze Twitter data for "intelligence", particularly to identify malware threats. See "<A href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25565508/Twarfing-Gathering-Intelligence-from-Twitter-Data">Twarfing: Gathering Intelligence from Twitter Data</A>." The slides were for a recent&nbsp;<A href="http://www.swnyc.org/index.php?title=Gathering_Intelligence_from_Twitter_Data_with_Morton_Swimmer">presentation</A> at the <A href="http://www.swnyc.org/index.php?title=New_York_Semantic_Web_Meetup">New York Semantic Web Meetup</A>.</P> <P>Twitter tweets are analyzed, mapped into RDF, stored in an RDF quadstore database, and then queried via SPARQL. His approach makes use of the SIOC, FOAF (Friend Of A Friend), GeoOWL,&nbsp;and Dublin Core ontologies.</P> <P>Currently, JSON and CouchDB are used in the processing of Tweets.</P> <P>He mentions "probable" use of Lucene in future work. A "cocktail napkin" block diagram identifies Lucene, but it is not clear whether that is in the current architecture or a future design.</P> <P>The presentation includes a couple of SPARQL examples of "patterns" to identify both users who are promoting malware sites and the sites themselves, based on past references to sites that have been identified as malware sites.</P> <P>He also mentions the use of "<EM>text signatures</EM>" to identify similar references across a wide range of tweets.</P> <P>-- Jack Krupansky</P> <P>&nbsp;</P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2342706872144404077?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-42763571826479419452009-12-30T17:32:00.001-05:002009-12-30T17:32:52.774-05:00<P>I frequently receive conference announcements in my in-box and rarely do they inspire me much at all, but the announcement for a conference on "<STRONG><EM>Brain Informatics</EM></STRONG>" certainly caught my attention. The announcement for&nbsp;"<A href="http://www.wici-lab.org/amtbi10/amtbi.php?conf=bi&amp;here=cfp">2010 International Conference on Brain Informatics (BI 2010)</A>" or "Brain Informatics 2010" tells us that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Brain Informatics (BI) has recently emerged as an interdisciplinary research field that focuses on studying the mechanisms underlying the human information processing system (HIPS). It investigates the essential functions of the brain, ranging from perception to thinking, and encompassing such areas as multi-perception, attention, memory, language, computation, heuristic search, reasoning, planning, decision-making, problem-solving, learning, discovery, and creativity. The goal of BI is to develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to achieving an integrated understanding of both macroscopic and microscopic level working principles of the brain, by means of experimental, computational, and cognitive neuroscience studies, as well as utilizing advanced Web Intelligence (WI) centric information technologies.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It goes on to say that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>BI represents a potentially revolutionary shift in the way that research is undertaken. It attempts to capture new forms of collaborative and interdisciplinary work. In this vision, new kinds of BI methods and global research communities will emerge, through infrastructure on the wisdom Web and knowledge grids that enables high speed and distributed, large-scale analysis and computations, and radically new ways of sharing data/knowledge.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Brain Informatics 2010 provides a leading international forum to bring together researchers and practitioners from diverse fields, such as computer science, information technology, artificial intelligence, Web intelligence, cognitive science, neuroscience, medical science, life science, economics, data mining, data and knowledge engineering, intelligent agent technology, human computer interation, complex systems, and system science, to explore the main research problems in BI lie in the interplay between the studies of human brain and the research of informatics. On the one hand, one models and characterizes the functions of the human brain based on the notions of information processing systems. WI centric information technologies are applied to support brain science studies. For instance, the wisdom Web and knowledge grids enable high-speed, large-scale analysis, simulation, and computation as well as new ways of sharing research data and scientific discoveries. On the other hand, informatics-enabled brain studies, e.g., based on fMRI, EEG, MEG significantly broaden the spectrum of theories and models of brain sciences and offer new insights into the development of human-level intelligence on the wisdom Web and knowledge grids.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The announcement provides another summary for "<EM>Brain Informatics (BI)</EM>":</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Brain Informatics (BI) is an emerging interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary research field that focuses on studying the mechanisms underlying the human information&nbsp; processing system (HIPS). BI investigates the essential functions of the brain, ranging from perception to thinking, and encompassing such areas as multi-perception, attention, memory, language, computation, heuristic search, reasoning, planning, decision-making, problem-solving, learning, discovery, and creativity.&nbsp; One goal of BI research is to develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to an integrated understanding of macroscopic and microscopic level working principles of the brain, by means of experimental, computational, and cognitive neuroscience studies, as well as utilizing advanced Web Intelligence (WI) centric information technologies.&nbsp; Another goal is to promote new forms of collaborative and interdisciplinary work.&nbsp; New kinds of BI methods and global research communities will emerge, through infrastructure on the wisdom Web and knowledge grids that enables high speed and distributed, large-scale analysis and computations, and radically new ways of data/knowledge sharing.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Conference topics include:</P> <UL style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <LI>Thinking and perception-centric investigations of HIPS:</LI> <UL> <LI>Human reasoning mechanisms (e.g., principles of human deductive/inductive reasoning, common-sense reasoning, decision making, and problem solving)</LI> <LI>Human learning mechanisms (e.g., stability, personalized user/student models)</LI> <LI>Emotion, heuristic search, information granularity, and autonomy related issues in human reasoning and problem solving</LI> <LI>Human higher cognitive functions and their relationships</LI> <LI>Human multi-perception mechanisms and visual, auditory, and tactile information processing</LI> <LI>Methodologies for systematic design of cognitive experiments</LI> <LI>Investigating spatiotemporal characteristics and flow in HIPS and the related neural structures and neurobiological process</LI> <LI>Cognitive architectures; their relations to fMRI/EEG/MEG</LI> <LI>HIPS meets complex systems</LI> <LI>Modeling brain information processing mechanisms (e.g., neuro-mechanism, mathematical, cognitive and computational models of HIPS).</LI></UL> <LI>Information technologies for the management and use of brain data:</LI> <UL> <LI>Human brain data collection, pre-processing, management, and analysis</LI> <LI>Databasing the brain and constructing data brain models</LI> <LI>Data brain modeling and formal conceptual models of human brain data</LI> <LI>Multi-media brain data mining and reasoning</LI> <LI>Multi-aspect analysis in fMRI/EEG/MEG activations</LI> <LI>Simulating spatiotemporal characteristics and flow in HIPS</LI> <LI>Developing brain data grids and brain research support portals</LI> <LI>Knowledge representation and discovery in neuroimaging</LI> <LI>Multimodal information fusion for brain image interpretation</LI> <LI>Statistical analysis and pattern recognition in neuroimaging</LI></UL> <LI>Applications</LI> <UL> <LI>Neuro-economics and neuro-marketing</LI> <LI>Brain-Computer-Interface (BCI) </LI> <LI>Brain/Cognition inspired artificial systems</LI> <LI>Wisdom Web systems based on new cognitive and computational models</LI> <LI>MCI and AD diagnosis</LI> <LI>e-Science and e-Medicine</LI></UL></UL> <P>-- Jack Krupansky</P> <P>&nbsp;</P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4276357182647941945?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-57043622491346558632009-11-01T20:36:00.001-05:002009-11-01T20:36:37.628-05:00<P>I just ran across an interesting conference announcement, <A href="http://www.hucc.hokudai.ac.jp/~k15696/home/sr10/">SOCREAL 2010: Second International Workshop on Philosophy and Ethics of Social Reality</A>. The conference summary is:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>In the past two decades, a number of logics and game theoretical analyses have been proposed and combined to model various aspects of social interaction among agents including individual agents, organizations, and individuals representing organizations. The aim of SOCREAL Workshop is to bring together researchers working on diverse aspects of such interaction in logic, philosophy, ethics, computer science, cognitive science and related fields in order to share issues, ideas, techniques, and results.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Topics will include:</P> <UL> <LI><EM>Language (or communication) as part of social reality</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Speech acts (or communicative acts) as what shape social reality</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Moral commitments (and conflicts) in social interaction</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Logic and game theory as tools for studying social reality</EM></LI> <LI><EM>(Organized) collective agency</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Norms and normative systems</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Social institutional facts and their dynamics</EM></LI></UL> <P>From my own perspective, presently, <EM>software agents</EM> operate at a rather primitive level with little more than basic data transfer and simple control, but eventually software agents will evolve into <EM>intelligent agents</EM> whose activity is more in the line of <EM>social behavior</EM>, including <EM>ethics</EM> and the behavior of groups and even <EM>organizations</EM> and <EM>institutions</EM> of software agents. And, of course, software agents are acting as <EM>agents</EM> for other entities, whether computational, or human. There certainly is a lot of ground to be broken. It is at least heartening that people are beginning to scratch the surface of the potential for <EM>social reality</EM> of computational entities.</P> <P>Eventually, somebody will realize that these <EM>social agents</EM> are communicating in a <EM>language</EM> and that language has <EM>semantics</EM> and that there is a potential for a great <EM>semantic abyss</EM> between the various <EM>communities</EM> of social agents, as well as a vast semantic abyss between these computational agents and their real world "masters".</P> <P>Great challenges and great opportunities.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5704362249134655863?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-90220811059578204572009-11-01T18:26:00.001-05:002009-11-01T18:26:24.370-05:00<P>I just ran across an interesting blog related to the Semantic Web called <A href="http://decentralyze.com/">Decentralyze - Programming the Data Cloud</A> by Sandro Hawke of W3C. A key theme of the blog is, as Sandro puts it, "<EM>I want computer systems to decentralize, minimizing central points of control. I don't like walled gardens or bottlenecks.</EM>" My sentiment exactly.</P> <P>His latest blog post, <A href="http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/">RDF 2 Wishlist</A>, offers his thoughts on the next iteration of the W3C RDF recommendation.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-9022081105957820457?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-3558700097603316702009-09-03T16:46:00.000-04:002009-09-03T16:47:22.085-04:00<P>Modeling of events in terms of objects, time, and space is an important aspect of representing knowledge. <STRONG>Event-Model-F</STRONG> is a formal model of events developed by Dr. Ansgar Scherp, et al and&nbsp;based on the foundational ontology DOLCE+DnS Ultralight (DUL) which provides comprehensive support&nbsp;for representing time, space, objects, and persons, as well as mereological, causal, and correlative relationships between events&nbsp; and enables interoperability in distributed event-based systems. As the <A href="http://isweb.uni-koblenz.de/eventmodel">Event-Model-F web page</A> states,</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>In addition, the Event-Model-F provides a flexible means for event composition, modeling event causality and event correlation, and representing different interpretations of the same event. The Event-Model-F is developed following the pattern-oriented approach of DUL, is modularized in different ontologies, and can be easily extended by domain specific ontologies.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>"Mereological" simply refers to part-to-whole and part-to-part relationships for decomposing or composing a complex object or system.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Agtivity.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-355870009760331670?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-35144976102320903062009-08-31T17:51:00.001-04:002009-08-31T17:51:33.696-04:00<P>Previously, I gave a rather lackluster mini-review of&nbsp;the new book&nbsp;<A href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1422146642/finaxyz-20"><EM>Wired for Thought: How the Brain Is Shaping the Future of the Internet</EM></A>&nbsp;by Jeffrey M. Stibel&nbsp;which claims that&nbsp;"<EM>The Internet is more than just a series of interconnected computer networks: it's the first real replication of the human brain outside the human body</EM>", but I have had a few more thoughts, in particular related to the concept of a "<EM>collective consciousness</EM>."</P> <P>My main regret is that I failed to note that the World Wide Web as a whole does to a fair extent <EM>represent&nbsp;a&nbsp;dynamic snapshot of the&nbsp;collective consciousness</EM> of the millions of people who use the Web. Blog posts and Twitter streams do in fact give a reasonably accurate sense of the topics that are at the front of our collective minds and the tip of our collective tongues.</P> <P>The Web itself does not <EM>sense</EM> or have <EM>consciousness</EM>, but <EM>users</EM> using the Web as a <EM>wall to write on and read from</EM>&nbsp;can convey their thoughts and reactions&nbsp;<EM>through</EM> the Web.</P> <P>But, I think that is about as far as I feel comfortable going on this idea of the Web being analogous to the human brain.</P> <P>After all, this <EM>collective consciousness</EM> is not really a consciousness per se in the way the human brain has a consciousness. There is no <EM>single voice</EM> of <EM>the collective</EM>. There is no <EM>I</EM>. There is no sense of <EM>self</EM>.</P> <P>We cannot have a true <EM>dialogue</EM> with the collective.</P> <P>We cannot ask <EM>a</EM> question and get <EM>an</EM> answer.</P> <P>The collective does not have <EM>a</EM> personality.</P> <P>You cannot have a <EM>one-to-one</EM> or <EM>one-on-one</EM> interaction with the collective.</P> <P>The collective never makes <EM>a decision</EM>.</P> <P>The collective does not have <EM>a responsibility</EM>. Nor does it have any <EM>obligations</EM>.</P> <P>The collective does not exhibit <EM>common sense</EM>.</P> <P>Nonetheless, the book does contain some interesting insights and is well worth a browse even if you do not purchase it.</P> <P align=center><A href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385528264/finaxyz-20"></A></P> <P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr align=center><A href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1422146642/finaxyz-20"><IMG border=0 hspace=0 alt="" align=baseline src="http://harvardbusiness.org/products/12005-HBK-ENG/thumbnail/thumbnail.gif"></A></P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3514497610232090306?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-19668465435452831212009-08-24T18:12:00.000-04:002009-08-24T18:16:09.539-04:00<P>There was an interesting article in <EM>The New York Times</EM> by Alex Wright entitled <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24emotion.html?th&amp;emc=th">Mining the Web for Feelings, Not Facts</A> about how companies are beginning to "mine" online social media such as blogs and social networks for consumer attitudes towards companies&nbsp;and their policies, products, and services. The emerging field of <EM>sentiment analysis</EM> aims at translating vague or not&nbsp;so vague&nbsp;opinions into hard data.&nbsp;The key thing here is that companies are much more interested in how consumers <EM>feel</EM> about companies&nbsp;and their policies, products, and services than in traditional hard, <EM>factual</EM> data.</P> <P>In addition to <EM>how</EM> people feel, companies are also interested in identifying <EM>who</EM> are the more <EM>influential</EM> opinion holders.</P> <P>Organizing and presenting all of this data is also a key challenge.</P> <P>The one point I would make is that this is all fine and dandy for <EM>companies</EM>, but I think that <EM>consumers</EM> would like to access similar data and analyses.</P> <P>There is obviously a lot in common for what a company and a consumer would like to do in terms of understanding sentiment towards&nbsp;companies&nbsp;and their policies, products, and services, but there are differences. In some sense, consumers may have even more intense needs and desires to seek and be at the <EM>bleeding edge</EM> of consumer trends. After all, it is the consumers who&nbsp;both have an intense passion for being part of the latest trends as well as&nbsp;<EM>setting the trends</EM>.</P> <P>The obvious difference is that consumers won't be paying an arm and a leg for expensive software and services for sentiment analysis.</P> <P>Consumers already have some amount of familiarity with sentiment analysis as there are a wealth of <EM>lists</EM> of top topics, hit topics, most read stories, top keywords, ranking and sharing of preferences for web pages, etc.</P> <P>My hunch is that there are probably more consumers that have a keener sense of sentiment on the Internet than your average corporate suit in traditional <EM>market intelligence</EM>.</P> <P>In any case, consumers need ever-greater tools and capabilities for recording and monitoring sentiment, both as <EM>producers</EM> of sentiment and <EM>consumers</EM> of sentiment.</P> <P>As we evolve an infrastructure for a true <EM>knowledge web</EM>, representation and access to sentiment knowledge and data&nbsp;needs to be a key focus.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1966846543545283121?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-67861060767553732009-08-24T12:38:00.001-04:002009-08-25T12:40:24.792-04:00<p>Yesterday I was browsing through the new book table at Barnes &amp; Noble near Lincoln Center and found an interesting book entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1422146642/finaxyz-20"><em>Wired for Thought: How the Brain Is Shaping the Future of the Internet</em></a> by Jeffrey M. Stibel that informs us that "<em>The Internet is more than just a series of interconnected computer networks: it's the first real replication of the human brain outside the human body</em>" and that a "<em>collective consciousness</em>" is being created. Sounds fascinating. The <em>Amazon</em> blurb tells us that:</p> <blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"> <p><em>In this age of hyper competition, the Internet constitutes a powerful tool for inventing radical new business models that will leave your rivals scrambling. But as brain scientist and entrepreneur Jeffrey Stibel explains in "Wired for Thought", you have to understand its true nature. The Internet is more than just a series of interconnected computer networks: it's the first real replication of the human brain outside the human body. To leverage its power, you first need to understand how the Internet has evolved to take on similarities to the brain. This engaging and provocative book provides the answer. Stibel shows how exceptional companies are using their understanding of the Internet's brain like powers to create competitive advantage - such as building more effective Web sites, predicting consumer behavior, leveraging social media, and creating a collective consciousness.</em></p></blockquote> <p>The promise sounded truly compelling, but after five minutes of leafing through the book I was not able to isolate more than a few stray details that had any bearing on fulfilling the promise. There was was too much "pop puff" which may thrill the average reader ignorant of the relevant technology, but I simply was unable to find any substantive justification for the central thesis of the book. It may in fact be there since I did not read the book cover to cover, but if it is so compelling and presumably pervasive, how could I have missed it?</p> <p>Nonetheless, this book may have a solid position simply as a statement of "the state of the art", telling us not how close we are to real success, but simply where we happen to be today. Yes, we are getting closer to the mountain, but that does not automatically translate into closeness to the peak.</p> <p>There is a lot that we do not yet deeply compehend about the human brain, mind, consciousness, and intellect, so I am not sure how much mileage we can get out of comparing the Internet to the human brain. In fact, I have a hunch it might be an exercise in futility at this stage. Sure, we can paint a broad-brush picture and draw lots of fuzzy analogies, but none of that will necessarily result in true enlightenment.</p> <p>By all means, browse the book yourself and make up your own mind whether it meshes with your own expertise and interest levels. The book does have a <a href="http://www.wiredforthought.com/chapter_excerpts.html">web site with chapter excerpts</a>.</p> <p>For me, I put down the book pondering the question 'Where's the beef?".</p> <p>Oddly, Amazon does not have a picture of the book cover, but I was able to find it on the Harvard Business School Press web site since they are the publisher. Note: I get a small commission if you buy the book by clicking on any of my links to the book on Amazon.</p> <p align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385528264/finaxyz-20"></a></p> <p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr" align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1422146642/finaxyz-20"><img border="0" hspace="0" alt="" align="baseline" src="http://harvardbusiness.org/products/12005-HBK-ENG/thumbnail/thumbnail.gif" /></a></p> <p>-- <a href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6786106076755373?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-82328191065028637242009-08-24T11:38:00.000-04:002009-08-24T11:39:01.107-04:00<P>In a <A href="http://semanticabyss.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-reliable-is-knowledge.html">recent post I commented on our dependence on the reliability of knowledge</A>. Now, I'll extend that inquiry to the <EM>reliability of questions</EM> themselves. You might wonder how could a question be <EM>unreliable</EM>? How could a question be <EM>false</EM>? How could a question be <EM>misleading</EM>? Good questions. That is the point.</P> <P>A&nbsp;question is really simply an <EM>implied statement</EM> at a foundation level. The implied statement is a characterization of a quantity of information or knowledge that is desired, coupled with a <EM>request</EM> or <EM>demand</EM> or <EM>command</EM> that the requested information be provided.</P> <P>So, how can a question be <EM>unreliable</EM>?</P> <UL> <LI>The person asking the question may not really need the information. In that sense, the implied statement "I need <EM>X</EM>" may be a <EM>lie</EM>. <LI>The person may already have the information so that supplying the information may not be necessary. They may merely be seeking confirmation or maybe testing the other party. <LI>The question may be overly broad due to poor phrasing. <LI>The question may be overly narrow due to poor phrasing. <LI>The question may refer to knowledge that simply does not exist. <LI>The timing of the question may be inappropriate, either too early or too late to get a reasonable answer. <LI>The questioned&nbsp;party&nbsp;may not be a reasonable <EM>source</EM> for the answer. <LI>The question may be an imposition or&nbsp;unfair or disrespectful or discourteous of the questioned party. <LI>The tone of the question may be inappropriate. <LI>The represented need for an answer may not be appropriate. <LI>The implied statement may be offensive. <LI>The question may be illegal or a violation of the questioned party's rights. <LI>The complexity of the answer may be far out of proportion to the expectation of the questioner. <LI>The two parties may not agree on compatible interpretations of the terms used within the question. <LI>The questioner may be using private interpretations of some terms without disclosing those interpretations. <LI>The context may not be explicit in the question. <LI>The context may be incomplete or ambiguous in the question. <LI>The question may be ambiguous. Even simple English words can be ambiguous. <LI>The question may really be simply a statement in the form of a question with no intent that an answer is expected. <LI>The question may be rhetorical. No "answer" is expected, but the question is intended to "hang" over the interaction. <LI>The question may seem simple, but have underlying complexity that the questioner or the questioned party&nbsp;may be unaware of. <LI>The answer to a question may have a radically different context than the questioner was prepared for and that seemed implied by the question. <LI>The question might be <EM>loaded</EM> so that any answer might be misleading. <LI>The question might be <EM>leading</EM> so that the answer might be improperly biased. <LI>The question might be designed so that the legitimate answer might <EM>indirectly mislead </EM>a third party monitoring the interaction. <LI>The question might be worded in such a way that the answer might be misleading if viewed by itself without the full context of the question. <LI>The statement implied by the question might be internally inconsistent. <LI>The question might be intended as a distraction rather than a genuine query for information. <LI>The questioner may be asking the right question but the wrong person. <LI>The questioner may not have done sufficient due diligence to identify a <EM>source</EM> that can reasonably be considered reliable.</LI></UL> <P>At heart, the issue is whether the questioned party or a computational system being questioned can reasonably be expected to respond with an <EM>acceptable </EM>answer. And even if the response is considered "acceptable", was the question itself <EM>reliable</EM> enough for the questioner to be able to <EM>depend</EM> on the answer (assuming&nbsp;the answer&nbsp;itself is also reliable.)</P> <P><EM>Context</EM> is essential. The questioned party <EM>may</EM> be able to infer all or part of the questioner's context, but <EM>assumptions</EM> about context can be somewhat risky and unreliable, possibly leading to an unreliable question despite the best of intentions on the part of the questioner.</P> <P>Answering questions reliably&nbsp;certainly requires very careful attention to detail, but there is still plenty of <EM>craft</EM> if not outright <EM>art</EM> that needs to go into constructing <EM>reliable</EM> questions. There is an old saying in the data processing world, "<STRONG><EM>GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out</EM></STRONG>."</P> <P>All too often, people have a <EM>false sense of confidence</EM> in the reliability of their questions which can lead to a false sense of confidence that the answers are valid for the questions they <EM>thought</EM> they were asking.</P> <P>The only tried and true method I know of to even come close to assuring the reliability of a question is to ask multiple parties the same question and to ask multiple <EM>corollary</EM> questions so that the multiple answers can be examined to reinforce the most reliable answer. This doesn't even come close to avoiding all of the reliability factors I listed above, but at least it is a start.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8232819106502863724?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-38533676880187712072009-08-23T08:50:00.001-04:002009-08-23T08:50:52.234-04:00<P>We depend on knowledge in our daily lives. We <EM>presume</EM> that what we consider "knowledge" is <EM>true</EM> or at least <EM>highly likely</EM> to be true. But, how <EM>reliable</EM> is <EM>any</EM> of what we call "knowledge"? This raises some questions:</P> <UL> <LI>How can we know that any purported knowledge is in fact true?</LI> <LI>How can we verify that any knowledge is true?</LI> <LI>How can we determine how to verify any knowledge?</LI> <LI>How can we have any confidence in our belief in any knowledge?</LI> <LI>What can we really do when we are unsure whether any knowledge is really true?</LI> <LI>What can we confidently say about the truth of any knowledge that we believe in?</LI> <LI>What statements can we safely make about the reliability of any knowledge?</LI> <LI>What disclaimers should we give regarding the reliability of any knowledge?</LI> <LI>How certain do we need to be before we can assert that a statement or claim is in fact knowledge?</LI></UL> <P>Ultimately, we need to be able to point to a piece of knowledge and ask and <EM>get</EM> the answer to one simple question: <STRONG><EM>How reliable is this knowledge?</EM></STRONG></P> <P>This implies that there needs to be some <EM>record</EM> of the history of asking and answering these questions for each and every bit of knowledge.</P> <P>But, even with such a historical record, how reliable is any of that history and how can we even believe that any of it is reliable?</P> <P>Maybe the bottom line is that <EM>every</EM> bit of knowledge is of dubious reliability, even if we do not quite express or acknowledge it.</P> <P>Nonetheless, we need to have some <EM>sense</EM> of the reliability of every bit of knowledge.</P> <P><EM>Trust</EM> probably has a role. To wit, if we know <EM>who</EM> believes a bit of knowledge, we can then <EM>judge</EM> that person or institution's <EM>credibility</EM> for having <EM>good reason</EM> to believe in that knowledge.</P> <P>Ultimately, we do depend on <EM>our own judgment</EM> of the veracity of any knowledge, but at least some of us know better than to trust our own judgment <EM>too far</EM>.</P> <P>There are also two quite different statements any of us can make about knowledge:</P> <OL> <LI>Do we <EM>believe</EM> and <EM>accept</EM> that a given bit of&nbsp;knowledge is valid?</LI> <LI>Do we have <EM>good reason</EM> for that belief?</LI></OL> <P>Maybe a simple statement about <EM>why</EM> we believe in the validity of any knowledge is <EM>good enough</EM> or maybe even <EM>as good as it gets</EM>.</P> <P>It would be nice for a <EM>knowledge web</EM> to have links for each bit of knowledge that say <EM>who</EM> believes it and who or what they can reference as to <EM>why</EM> they believe it. That is clearly not enough to judge the ultimately reliability of a bit of knowledge, but is surely a great start.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3853367688018771207?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-42421076317948806732009-08-05T11:01:00.001-04:002009-08-05T11:01:47.073-04:00<P>Despite all of the myriad technological advances in computer hardware and software and all of the wonderful specialized <EM>computer languages</EM>, it is amazing that <EM>natural language</EM>, in particular English, is still such a dominant force in the world. This is where we are today, but what about the future?</P> <P>Computer language designers and application developers are quite busily at work incrementally chipping away at more and deeper and broader niches where computer languages can <EM>supplant</EM> natural language as the preferred "tongue." Still, progress is <EM>very</EM> slow. Natural language is still the choice for expressiveness and flexibility and ease of use. That seems unlikely to change any time soon.</P> <P>Low birth rates in "English-speaking" countries make it increasingly likely that fewer and fewer people will consider English to be their <EM>native</EM> tongue in the decades to come. Still, somehow, English continues to have value to "open doors" across cultures, especially in business, government, science, and engineering, and especially computer software.</P> <P>The Web makes it very easy for people to use their <EM>local</EM> language, which is fine when the intended audience is local, but many Web sites either use English or have an alternate set of Web pages in English to cater to a global audience.</P> <P>Then we come to the Semantic Web. In some sense the Semantic Web is a direct parallel to the traditional&nbsp;non-semantic Web. It is difficult to say whether data in the Semantic Web is any <EM>more</EM> global than the old Web. Maybe initially more of the efforts are for a global audience, just as they were with the traditional Web in the early days, but over time we should hope that very specialized databases and applications will be tailored heavily for local audiences. Rest assured that the Semantic Web technologies are designed for <EM>internationalization</EM> and <EM>localization</EM>.</P> <P>But since <EM>globalized</EM>&nbsp;Semantic Web applications and code libraries, by definition, <EM>know</EM> something about the data they are processing, that implies that this "knowledge" about the data&nbsp;needs to be in a language-independent form.</P> <P>To be truly useful, <EM>software agents</EM>, especially <EM>intelligent agents</EM>, need to access the meaning of data and to access it <EM>globally</EM>. This means, once again, that knowledge <EM>about data </EM>needs to be represented in a form that is not <EM>hidden</EM> by localized natural languages.</P> <P>As things stand today, the three main tools for globalizing applications are:</P> <UL> <LI>Use of English as the "core" language.</LI> <LI>Maintaining data in <EM>conceptual, language-neutral</EM> form.</LI> <LI>Tools for localizing data to the native or preferred tongue of the <EM>user</EM>.</LI></UL> <P>Automatic language translation is still fairly primitive and unlikely to be "solved" in the near future.</P> <P>As technologies, especially the Semantic Web, are under development and dynamically evolving at a rapid pace it makes sense to focus on a single, core natural language to assure that information is communicated as rapidly and widely as possible.</P> <P>But as the technology matures (maybe in another ten to twenty years), the need for such broad communication will rapidly diminish. Sure, the <EM>elite</EM> will still communicate globally, but the <EM>average</EM> practitioner will likely serve a local audience. All important documents and specifications will have been translated into all the significant natural languages.&nbsp;In that kind of environment the need to "work" in English will effectively vanish, much as we see today with local Web sites, blogs, and other social media. Twitter is the latest to experience this localization phenomenon.</P> <P>That still leaves the case of software agents. An unsolved problem. Sure, they can be heavily localized as well, but that is not a solution per se. Maybe initially a new development in agent technology might be English-only or English-centric, but as that technology matures, it is only natural that developers seek to <EM>refine</EM> the technology to exploit <EM>localized intelligence</EM>. That may mean that such an agent is less usable at a global level, but it may not be as important at that stage. Also, agents can be programmed with <EM>split personalities</EM> so that they can still operate at a global level albeit at a somewhat lower level of capability than the more specialized localized intelligence. That also requires greater effort and discipline&nbsp;on the part of developers. That is less than optimal.</P> <P>There is also the underlying issue that besides superficial language issues, there are also <EM>cultural</EM> differences between countries, peoples, and regions of the world. Initial Semantic Web efforts may tend to be at a fairly high level where such cultural differences are rather muted, but as Semantic Web applications become deeper and more localized, cultural differences will start moving to the forefront.</P> <P>Academic and high-end commercial developers have a need and interest to present their work globally, including marketing,&nbsp;journal papers, and&nbsp;conferences. English is the norm. Semantic Web content that is not in English will tend to not be preferred in such venues. Besides, high-end developers will tend to prefer to develop <EM>internationalized</EM> content that can be <EM>localized</EM> as needed.</P> <P><EM>Global communities</EM> of developers are also becoming a new norm. This includes <EM>open source community projects</EM> where, by definition, the initial and current contributors have no idea what country or culture future contributors will be from.&nbsp;This once again argues against doing development in anything other than English.</P> <P>All of this leads me to believe that English will continue to be the dominant natural language for advanced and emerging computer software, especially the Semantic Web, for some time to come. Nonetheless, the issue of how to fully support and <EM>exploit </EM>local natural languages will remain and increasingly become&nbsp;a very thorny issue.</P> <P>One lingering issue with the Semantic Web is the language to be used for constructing predicate and property names. They tend to be English, so far, which is okay since the end-user should never see them, but there is no requirement that they be English and some developers who have less global interests may begin to use their local language for predicate and property labels. This introduces a whole new level of mapping and matchmaking complexity. Sure, it is solvable, but it is also <EM>unsolved</EM> and a potential problem lurking around the corner. Sure, <EM>motivated</EM> developers can manually add the necessary mapping, but it simply tends to minimize the extent to which <EM>serendipity just works</EM> without manual intervention by developers.</P> <P>All of this begs the question of how the English language itself might evolve over the coming decades. One interesting possibility is that at some point the technology&nbsp;"users" of English, including Semantic Web content developers,&nbsp;could become&nbsp;a much greater force than the native speakers that the users will realize that <EM>they</EM> are effectively in control of the English language and can evolve it as <EM>they</EM> see fit. It will be interesting to see how that <EM>post-English</EM> language evolves.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4242107631794880673?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-51742528046911926892009-08-04T17:17:00.001-04:002009-08-04T17:17:55.201-04:00<P>There is a small collection of <A href="http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/2009/07/sssw/">OWL ontology reasoning&nbsp;examples from Manchester University</A> in the UK. They are written in the <A href="http://agtivity.com/def/manchester_owl_syntax.htm">Manchester OWL syntax</A>, which is a more compact and easier to read frame-based syntax than the usual RDF/XML triple/axiom format of the Semantic Web. There are four example ontologies, People, Pets, Pizzas, and Sports Teams.</P> <P>Here is an example of a <EM>class</EM> in the Manchester OWL syntax:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Class: man<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Annotations: <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; rdfs:label "man"<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; EquivalentTo: <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; adult<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and male<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and person</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5174252804691192689?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-65160662415461419482009-08-04T17:15:00.001-04:002009-08-04T17:15:25.105-04:00<P>There is a small collection of <A href="http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/2009/07/sssw/">OWL ontology reasoning&nbsp;examples from Manchester University</A> in the UK. They are written in the <A href="http://agtivity.com/def/manchester_owl_syntax.htm">Manchester OWL syntax</A>, which is a more compact and easier to read frame-based syntax than the usual RDF/XML triple/axiom format of the Semantic Web. There are four example ontologies, People, Pets, Pizzas, and Sports Teams.</P> <P>Here is an example of a <EM>class</EM> in the Manchester OWL synatx:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Class: man<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Annotations: <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; rdfs:label "man"<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; EquivalentTo: <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; adult<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and male<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and person</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6516066241546141948?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-17694940625304836012009-08-04T11:17:00.000-04:002009-08-04T11:18:18.720-04:00<P>Context is an important element of knowledge. Time is an important element of context. If we really want to <EM>understand</EM> a piece of knowledge, we need to know its context and its timing in the flow of events. Data and knowledge needs to be <EM>timestamped</EM>.</P> <P>There is no single time or timestamp&nbsp;for any piece of knowledge. Various timings include:</P> <UL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">When an <EM>observation</EM> was made, when the <EM>raw observation data</EM> was captured. This may be from a hardware <EM>sensor</EM> monitoring the <EM>real physical world</EM>,&nbsp;a process <EM>monitoring</EM> some&nbsp;<EM>data stream</EM>,&nbsp;or even a <EM>user interface</EM>.</DIV> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">When the raw observation data was <EM>analyzed</EM> to derive the <EM>nominal observation</EM>, the <EM>nominal knowledge</EM>.</DIV> <LI>When was the knowledge <EM>stored</EM>. <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">When was the knowledge <EM>validated</EM>.</DIV> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">When was the knowledge <EM>published</EM> or otherwise <EM>made available</EM>.</DIV> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">When the knowledge was <EM>calculated</EM> from <EM>other</EM> knowledge.</DIV> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">When is the <EM>validity</EM> of the observation <EM>expected to expire</EM>.</DIV></LI></UL> <P>In some cases, the raw observation data might be preserved and <EM>re-analyzed</EM> at a later data with "improved" analytic capabilities and the nominal knowledge <EM>re-generated</EM>. In such cases there would then be multiple pieces of knowledge for each observation, each qualified by the time of analysis or re-analysis.</P> <P>In some cases there may be <EM>latency</EM> between the raw <EM>sensor</EM> capture of the data and the <EM>reading</EM> of that raw data from the sensor device by the computational device that will <EM>record</EM> that sensor data. Typically that latency will be too small to matter, but for <EM>high-speed</EM> capture sequences it may be significant. Two separate timestamps may be needed. Or, a discrete timestamp for each <EM>processing step</EM> along the way.</P> <P>A piece of knowledge may have been captured from <EM>multiple sources</EM>, so we need to represent the distinct sources and their distinct timings as well. Collectively they may still represent a single <EM>logical observation</EM>. An example might be a&nbsp;3-D camera which is really multiple cameras.</P> <P>One could also <EM>link</EM> a number of discrete but simultaneous observations, such as all cameras in a given area, so that collectively they can be considered a <EM>single super observation</EM>. That overall super observation can have its own timestamps, but there also needs to be a way to <EM>drill down</EM> to get all of the component timestamps.</P> <P>The timing of capture by multiple sources may be <EM>close enough</EM> to be considered <EM>the same time</EM>, or maybe enough time had elapsed to suggest that they were <EM>different</EM> observations. Actually, they <EM>are different</EM> observations in any case, but the issue is whether they are <EM>equivalent</EM>, or more precisely <EM>equivalent in some particular sense</EM>. This concept of <EM>sense of equivalence</EM> needs to be explored more fully.</P> <P>Each <EM>observation station</EM> may have its own <EM>timepiece</EM> and they may not be <EM>synchronized</EM>. One solution might be to suggest that timepiece synchronization should be a <EM>standard protocol</EM> when two or more devices are exchanging information that is time-sensitive. Maybe the <EM>local time</EM> is recorded and then a <EM>delta time</EM> is recorded for any data that is transferred between two devices.</P> <P><EM>Calculated data</EM> is especially problematic because each of the <EM>elements</EM> of data used in the <EM>calculation</EM> may have its own <EM>timestamps</EM>. The implication is that each piece of calculated data should have an <EM>element trail</EM> that references each of those pieces of knowledge used in the calculation so that they can be <EM>examined</EM> later if the data needs to be <EM>audited</EM>.</P> <P>Now, how all of these timestamps would be represented and stored in the Semantic Web is another matter entirely and left for further contemplation.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1769494062530483601?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-51095332891232946712009-08-03T12:52:00.000-04:002009-08-03T12:53:13.174-04:00<P>If you want to construct a database of any serious data you quickly realize that you need to share as much common data as possible. A key concept is <EM><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/reference_data.htm">reference data</A></EM>, which is simply <EM>common data</EM> the is needed is a number of places within the database schema. Reference data is a tool to&nbsp;help you <EM>cope with complexity</EM> as well as <EM>interoperability</EM>.&nbsp;This allows you to leverage the extra effort spent on defining and refining the reference data so that the rest of the database can <EM>depend</EM> on the quality and detail of that reference data without having to <EM>reinvent the wheel</EM> every time a bit of the common data is needed. Examples of reference data include names (and other info)&nbsp;of countries, states, and cities, named entities such as businesses or venders, names of products and services, codings for colors, shoe sizes, any forms of units, classes of service, types of foods, types of meals, forms of payment, medical conditions and treatments, names of bones, names of animals and plants,&nbsp;etc. In general, any of these pieces of reference data would have at least a natural language name an description, but the most important thing is that each item has an <EM>ID</EM> or <EM>identifier</EM> that can be used in the body of the database rather than storing the natural language text repeatedly all over the database.</P> <P>The generic concept at work here is <EM><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/factoring.htm">factoring</A></EM> where one or more models are compared, common elements are identified, extracted, and then the common elements are referenced <EM>indirectly</EM> and <EM>managed and controlled separately</EM>.</P> <P>In the context of the Semantic Web, reference data includes global information which is common to many SemWeb applications. A developer may be constructing an application-specific database, but they he should be able to <EM>leverage</EM> off of the work of others by <EM>referencing</EM> ontologies and reference data that has already been developed by the global community, such as in the context of the <A href="http://agtivity.com/def/linked_data_web.htm">Linked Data Web</A>.</P> <P>The <EM>ID</EM> or <EM>identifier</EM> for a piece of reference data on the Semantic Web is of course represented as a URI, an <EM><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/rdf_uri_reference.htm">RDF URI reference</A></EM>.</P> <P>A broad array of reference data is a <EM>necessary</EM> requirement for a solid foundation on which application developers can develop domain-specific and application-specific databases.</P> <P>Reference data is also a key to being able to <EM>match</EM> disparate databases which were developed at different times and places. Gradually, databases will begin to <EM>share</EM> reference data, but at least in the short-run databases can be merged or meshed by figuring out how their common data meshes through the mechanism of reference data.</P> <P>There can be <EM>many levels</EM> of reference data. Some data is truly <EM>global</EM> and readily shared across virtually all other databases. At the other end of the spectrum, there might be a <EM>family</EM> of applications or a <EM>niche domain</EM>, such that reference data is a useful <EM>data structuring</EM> tool, but the impact is much more limited compared to the entire global Semantic Web.</P> <P>In the traditional database world there is also the concept of <EM><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/master_reference_data.htm">master reference data</A></EM>. In that conception, <EM>reference data</EM> would simply be common <EM>within</EM> a single database, while <EM>master reference data</EM> would be common across <EM>multiple</EM> databases. Both are useful concepts. Individual databases can certainly be structured better using factoring and data can be globally more interoperable when factoring is done on a more global basis. In the context of the Semantic Web, I will continue to use the simpler term <EM>reference data</EM>, primarily to refer to global data factoring, but not intending to exclude factoring within individual databases. After all, some of the best global reference data might well originate within a single application before people <EM>eventually</EM>&nbsp;realize the global benefits.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5109533289123294671?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-13169664262558250962009-07-16T11:28:00.001-04:002009-07-16T11:28:37.605-04:00<P><EM>Reasoning</EM> is a critical capability needed to survive and thrive in the modern world. It is also a foundation of modern computing. But, in the "real" world, reasoning is not always the foundation of all thought and action. We use the term <EM>rational</EM> to&nbsp;characterize thinking and behavior that employs reasoning. We use the term <EM>irrational</EM> to characterize thinking and behavior that at least appears to "defy all logic" or "flies in the face of reason." In general, rational thought and action are considered <EM>good</EM> and irrational thought and behavior are considered <EM>bad.</EM></P> <P>In the context of this note I am concerned mainly with the communication of information, beliefs, observations, facts, logic, and conclusions, so even if an individual may act <EM>reasonably</EM> (possibly even by flipping a coin or reading tea leaves), the question is whether they are able to effectively communicate their thought processes and observations to the proverbial <EM>neutral observer</EM>.</P> <P>Reasoning works well when we have access to an <EM>objective</EM> view of the facts, when all relevant parties can agree on the truth of the facts.</P> <P>Reasoning tends to break down when individual views of the facts are <EM>subjective</EM>. If we can't agree on the truth of the facts, we are less likely to come to compatible conclusions, except maybe by chance.</P> <P>There is nothing wrong with <EM>subjectivity</EM> per se, and it may be an essential quality of much of the "real" world, but it does suggest that we cannot categorize all thinking and action as either rational or irrational.</P> <P><EM>Intuition</EM> is one example of thinking that defies categorization as rational or irrational and not clearly based on reasoning per se.</P> <P><EM>Gut feel</EM> is another example of a mental process that defies categorization as rational or irrational.</P> <P><EM>Personal preferences</EM> are commonly not <EM>guided</EM> exclusively by reasoning.</P> <P>I would suggest that there is a <EM>realm of the nonrational</EM> which includes all forms of thought and behavior that <EM>might</EM> be considered <EM>reasonable</EM> by at least some neutral observers, but cannot clearly be characterized as strictly rational or irrational.</P> <P>I would not categorize all aspects of religion, ethics, and aesthetics in the realm of the nonrational, but clearly the <EM>spiritual</EM>, including the existence and nature of a <EM>deity</EM>, the existence of a <EM>soul</EM>,&nbsp;and life before and after death would seem to fit nicely in the realm of the nonrational. Concepts such as <EM>beauty</EM> and <EM>preferred behavior</EM> and <EM>social values</EM> do not strictly flow from hard reasoning, but that does not make them implicitly unreasonable and irrational. They may have significant value to society even if we are currently unable to elucidate a <EM>formal logic</EM> for such a conclusion.</P> <P>Many forms of <EM>mysticism</EM> might also reasonably be categorized as being in the realm of the nonrational, but any form of mysticism based on outright <EM>fraud</EM> should clearly go into the category of irrational. Or, maybe fraudulent mysticism should actually remain in the realm of the nonrational, but merely <EM>flagged</EM> as fraudulent, especially since "true" believers might not be inclined to accept any form of reasoning about their cherished beliefs.</P> <P>I would not suggest that all forms of subjectivity should automatically be categorized as being in the realm of the nonrational. In cases where the range of subjectivity is fairly narrow and bounded, we can still reason reasonably effectively. But where the range of subjectivity is all over the map, unbounded, and unbridled, clearly reasoning is of little value.</P> <P>Another general category in the realm of the nonrational are beliefs and claims of behavior that by their very definition and nature cannot be verified by observation or any amount of logic. Some examples are:</P> <UL> <LI>Out of body experiences</LI> <LI>Communicating with the dead</LI> <LI>Seeing the future</LI> <LI>Recalling a past life</LI> <LI>Having visions that others cannot see</LI> <LI>Hearing voices in one's head that others cannot hear</LI> <LI>Characterizing one's soul</LI> <LI>Claiming the existence of a true <EM>soulmate</EM></LI> <LI>Claiming to have seen or done something without any credible, verifiable&nbsp;evidence</LI></UL> <P>In a <EM>Knowledge Web</EM>, it does make sense to be able to represent both the irrational and the nonrational in additional to the clearly rational. This does highlight one of the difficulties with reasoning within the context of a Knowledge Web. One might derive a conclusion from irrational or nonrational claims, but one needs to be sure to properly categorize the result based on the strength or weakness of the claims upon which the "reasoning" is based.</P> <P>In any case, the representation and use&nbsp;of the nonrational in a Knowledge Web is worthy of further consideration.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1316966426255825096?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-34668073213808884772009-07-15T20:19:00.000-04:002009-07-15T20:20:15.966-04:00<P>I updated and published more of my Semantic Web definitions.</P> <P>In addition to being in a hyperlinked web (<A href="http://agtivity.com/def/semantic_web.htm">Semantic Web</A> is a good place to start), the terms are listed alphabetically in my <A href="http://agtivity.com/semantic_web_glossary.htm">Semantic Web Glossary</A>.</P> <P>My own glossary is far from complete and not as readable as a traditional glossary, so if you are looking for an easy to read introductory glossary, check out <A href="http://semanticalley.com/2009/02/12/semantic-web-glossary/">Alex Genadinik's Semantic Web Glossary</A>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3466807321380888477?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-14587765564531820162009-07-15T12:29:00.001-04:002009-07-15T12:29:33.669-04:00<P>I will continue tuning and extending my Semantic Web definitions, but I did publish what I have so far:</P> <UL> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/semantic_web.htm">Semantic Web</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/semantic_web_technologies.htm">Semantic Web technologies</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/web_resource.htm">Web resource</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/web_application.htm">Web application</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/semantic_web_application.htm">Semantic Web application</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/web_of_data.htm">Web of data</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/linked_data.htm">Linked Data</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/web_of_linked_data.htm">Web of Linked Data</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/linking_open_data.htm">Linking Open Data (LOD)</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/linking_open_data_cloud.htm">LOD cloud</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/data.htm">data</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/metadata.htm">metadata</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/rdf_triple_statement.htm">RDF triple statement</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/rdf_statement.htm">RDF statement</A>&nbsp; <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/rdfa.htm">RDFa</A> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/resource_description_framework_in_attributes.htm">Resource Description Framework in Attributes</A></LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1458776556453182016?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-20677943547422771832009-07-14T12:59:00.000-04:002009-07-14T13:00:24.243-04:00<P>I am still working on my Semantic Web definitions, but I did publish what I have so far:</P> <UL> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/semantic_web.htm">Semantic Web</A></LI> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/semantic_web_technologies.htm">Semantic Web technologies</A></LI> <LI><A href="http://agtivity.com/def/web_resource.htm">Web resource</A></LI></UL> <P>Now I need to work on definitions for:</P> <UL> <LI>Linked Data</LI> <LI>Web of Linked Data</LI> <LI>Web application</LI> <LI>Semantic Web application</LI> <LI>Linking Open Data (LOD)</LI> <LI>LOD cloud</LI> <LI>metadata</LI> <LI>RDFa</LI> <LI>microformat</LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2067794354742277183?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-36146340592493702882009-07-13T18:09:00.001-04:002009-07-13T18:09:58.472-04:00<P>I am still working on it, but here is my initial draft of my own definition for <EM>Semantic Web</EM>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>The </EM>Semantic Web<EM> is the architecture, technologies, and implementation of the vision of the </EM>Web of data<EM> which enables data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries as a hyperlinked collection of data and metadata represented as </EM>Web resources<EM> combined with </EM>RDF triple statements<EM> that describe the details, meaning, and relationships among resources in a form that can be readily processed by computer software such as </EM>Web applications<EM> and </EM>software agents<EM> in a manner meaningful to applications rather than the presentation form of the traditional Web.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It is not my intention to reinvent or re-envision the Semantic Web, but simply to come up with a reasonably concise and accurate definition since there is none available today.</P> <P>I am not completely satisfied with this draft, but I think it does say everything that is needed, even if it is a bit verbose.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3614634059249370288?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-72821711767128897252009-07-10T16:20:00.001-04:002009-07-10T16:20:58.273-04:00<P>Today I happened to run across this <A href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/703.html">quote from Albert Einstein</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Imagination is more important than knowledge...</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, yeah, I suppose that does make sense.</P> <P>A little more Googling turned up <A href="http://thinkexist.com/quotation/imagination_is_more_important_than_knowledge-for/260230.html">a more complete version of that quote</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Okay, I get it.</P> <P>Now, I am pondering whether <EM>imagination</EM> should have some role or position in a comprehensive <EM>Knowledge Web</EM>. Not so much as actual, real&nbsp;entities, but maybe as <EM>placeholders</EM> for <EM>gaps</EM> where we <EM>know</EM> that something <EM>may</EM> be missing but we do not know what the <EM>missing link</EM> actually might be. We can also make use of <EM>links</EM> to indicate <EM>uncertainties</EM> about our knowledge. And, more directly to the point of imagination, we can represent <EM>speculation</EM> for the possibility of future knowledge.</P> <P>Speculation is maybe simply the midpoint between imagination and knowledge.</P> <P>A <EM>conjecture</EM>&nbsp;is a form of speculation.</P> <P>In fact, one might consider a conjecture as a <EM>slightly congealed</EM> form of imagination.</P> <P>Ditto for an <EM>idea</EM>, but an idea is even <EM>less congealed</EM> than a more formalized conjecture.</P> <P>Imagination is more of a <EM>mental process</EM>, which <EM>generates</EM> ideas.</P> <P>I think it makes a lot of sense for a Knowledge Web to include problems, questions, answers, and issues as first-class entities in the Knowledge Web, ranking right up there with knowledge itself, in the sense that they are <EM>conceptual things</EM> that we <EM>work with</EM>. Similarly, we do in fact work with ideas, conjectures, theories, and other forms of speculation.</P> <P>Imagination per se does in fact fit into a Knowledge Web as a <EM>conceptual entity</EM> in the same way as any other process, whether physical or mental, and&nbsp;is a <EM>conceptual thing</EM> that we can contemplate, discuss, and record.</P> <P>But processes also <EM>transcend</EM> a Knowledge Web in the sense that they do have an active life of their own, distinct from pure knowledge itself.</P> <P>We can also speak of a Knowledge Web as <EM>supporting</EM> or <EM>facilitating</EM>&nbsp;a process.</P> <P>A Knowledge Web can obviously store information about the various <EM>artifacts</EM> that may be <EM>generated</EM> by a process, whether physical or mental.</P> <P>Nonetheless, imagination would seem to be a very special process unlike all other processes. Most processes have at least some degree of predictability and in most cases it is that predictability that yields the most value. In contrast, imagination is highly unpredictable and it is that unpredictability that is most highly valued.</P> <P>How to mesh <EM>unpredictability</EM> into a Knowledge Web is an interesting challenge.</P> <P>Ultimately, we want a Knowledge Web that <EM>supports creativity</EM>, encouraging and facilitating&nbsp;imagination and&nbsp;other creative thought processes, and enabling realistic conceptualization of our ideas so that they can be carried into development and practice, as we see fit.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7282171176712889725?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-15858790944622317882009-07-09T13:40:00.001-04:002009-07-09T13:40:33.474-04:00<P>The <EM>formal names</EM> for <EM>concepts </EM>such as objects, people, places, streets, etc.&nbsp;can be rather inconvenient or in some cases a matter of dispute. In the real world, in natural language we use a variety of shortcuts:</P> <UL> <LI>Nicknames</LI> <LI>Alternate names</LI> <LI>Synonyms</LI> <LI>Abbreviations</LI> <LI>Full names that require context (e.g., city or town&nbsp;names that occur in more than one state or country)</LI></UL> <P>In theory, with the Semantic Web we can have a single <EM>concept URI</EM> for each thing and then state <EM>axioms</EM> to equate the various shortcuts with their equivalent specific concept. Unfortunately, a given shortcut might be used for more than one concept. Some form of <EM>context</EM> or other form of additional detail must be supplied to <EM>disambiguate</EM> ambiguous shortcuts.</P> <P>In the case of a user interface, a popup list of the choices can be provided and the user can make an explicit choice of the specific concept.</P> <P>But in the case of a <EM>computational agent</EM>, the agent must supply the disambiguating data.</P> <P>This also begs the question of how to store the <EM>graph</EM> that would describe what <EM>facts</EM> need to be detailed in order for a computational agent to choose between competing alternatives for a given shortcut. Sure, that could be application specific, but it would be a shame if each application was forced to invent its own mechanism. Possible a <EM>generic context</EM> lookup mechanism (e.g., the PostScript dictionary stack metaphor)&nbsp;could be defined to satisfy this need.</P> <P>Then there is the question of <EM>when</EM> a shortcut should be substituted with its equivalent umambiguous concept URI. Early has some advantages, but <EM>late binding</EM> also has some appeal. Another approach would be to carry around both, possibly in the form of a special <EM>shortcut mapping</EM> which gives the disambiguated concept for direct access but also provides the orginal shortcut for porting to other contexts or display, debugging, or other forms of convenience.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1585879094462231788?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-67675888948870863312009-07-09T10:59:00.001-04:002009-07-09T10:59:36.836-04:00<P>I had not been doing much with <EM><A href="http://www.facebook.com">Facebook</A></EM>, but since I was <A href="http://semanticabyss.blogspot.com/2009/07/whats-my-name-who-am-i.html">pondering issues with names</A>, I decided to go in and see what I had used for my name when I had claimed my Facebook profile (whenever that was, maybe a couple of years ago.)</P> <P>I had in fact claimed <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> as my name in Facebook. No surprise there. That is how most people know me.</P> <P>But the more I thought about it, I decided that I needed some way to <EM>also</EM> be findable as <EM>John W. Krupansky</EM>.</P> <P>I browsed through all of the options and settings and found where <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> was set as my "<STRONG>real name</STRONG>." Hmmm... <EM>real</EM> name. I hadn't paid attention before.</P> <P>While I was thinking about whether to change my "real" name in Facebook to <EM>John William Krupansky</EM>, I browsed some more and notice that Facebook also had an optional&nbsp;"<STRONG>Full Alternate Name</STRONG>." I went ahead and entered <EM>John William Krupansky</EM> as my <EM>full alternate name</EM>. Done.</P> <P>Oops... I thought about it for a few more seconds and realized that I had my names backwards. I should have used <EM>John William Krupansky</EM> as my <EM>real</EM> name and <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> as my full <EM>alternate</EM> name. That actually makes more sense. Done.</P> <P>I would be more comfortable with just my middle initial when my name is used in general and then show the full spelling if someone looks at my profile, but Facebook does not give my any such option.</P> <P>Unfortunately, the entire Facebook UI refers to me as <EM>John</EM> rather than <EM>Jack</EM>. Too bad they don't recognize formal and nick names and let you pick whether to default to formal or nick names. Actually, I'd rather have Facebook refer to me as <EM>Mr. Krupansky</EM>, just to make it clear what a subservient role the software real has. Facebook <EM>serves</EM> me. Facebook is not my <EM>friend</EM>.</P> <P>Now that I have done all of this I realize another issue... <EM><STRONG>findability in Google</STRONG></EM>. My primary interest is professional in nature, so I would prefer that other professionals be able to find me as they know me, which is <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM>. But, by using <EM>John William Krupansky</EM> as my Facebook "real" name, my professional name on Facebook&nbsp;is not directly findable. Now I am thinking that I should set my "real" name to <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> and my "alternate" name to <EM>John William Krupansky</EM>. But I'll think about this for more than a few seconds before changing it. Thinking... Done thinking. Changed. So, now my Facebook "real" name is back to <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> and my "alternate" name is <EM>John William Krupansky</EM>. Logically that is backwards, but practically it should work better.</P> <P>My Facebook profile is <A href="http://www.facebook.com/jack.krupansky">here</A>: <A href="http://www.facebook.com/jack.krupansky">http://www.facebook.com/jack.krupansky</A>.</P> <P>Now, I need to&nbsp;go in and make sure I have <EM>LinkedIn</EM> set in a similar manner, if possible.</P> <P>Twitter? Now there's a lost cause. Maybe they'll let me set my name properly when they figure out what they want to do in life.</P> <P>Oh, and while I was at it, I found an <EM>Ivan Krupansky</EM> over in Slovakia to add as a friend. And he has a friend <EM>Jakub Krupansky</EM> (with an acute accent over the "y", which I do not know how to enter in an emailed blog post) who I also added as a friend. Whether either of them is even a distant relative is unknown. Do we really have the <EM>same</EM> last name if one uses a diacritical mark?</P> <P>Now, I need to think some more about a sensible model for formal and informal names in the <EM>Semantic Web</EM>. It will be awhile before I get to the stage of addressing cultural difference in how names are used. That is all the more reason to <EM>strip</EM> the textual representations of names out of Semantic Web data and use a URI to reference the person rather than a culturally-dependent textual representation.</P> <P>I need to take a look at the <A href="http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/">FOAF (Friend Of A Friend) vocabulary specification</A> to at least use that as a starting reference point for name handling in the Semantic Web. Ditto for the <A href="http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/">Dublin Core Metadata Element Set</A>. I do not think either will get me very far, but I at least need to cover those bases.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6767588894887086331?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-10015912035937178292009-07-08T12:17:00.001-04:002009-07-08T12:17:42.047-04:00<P>They seem like such simple, obvious questions: What's your name? Who are you? In the "real" world the answers are easy, and online&nbsp;<EM>casually</EM> they are also easy, but in a hard-core semantic sense, boy are they tough problems. Sure, there is no problem if all you are using a name for is a text label or where the context provides qualifying information, but in a general, abstract sense names and identities are very hard problems.</P> <P>So, what is my name?</P> <P>Casually, as you see at the bottom of my blog posts, I am <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM>. Simple enough.</P> <P>But... <EM>Jack</EM> is just my nick name and not suitable for any <EM>legal</EM> documents. My driver's license and bills and credit cards and financial accounts&nbsp;all have my legal first name, <EM>John</EM>. So, I am "really" <EM>John Krupansky</EM>.</P> <P>Actually, I almost never use <EM>John Krupansky</EM>. In formal, legal contexts, including my driver's license, bills, voter registration, etc., I always use my middle initial: <EM>W</EM>. So, legally I refer to myself as <EM>John W. Krupansky</EM>, with the period.</P> <P>Actually, my driver's license says: <EM>KRUPANSKY, JOHN W</EM>, without the period.</P> <P>And&nbsp;my credit cards say <EM>JOHN W KRUPANSKY</EM>, also without the period.</P> <P>Personally, I never abbreviate my first name, but in some contexts my name could also be any of:</P> <UL> <LI>J. Krupansky</LI> <LI>J. KRUPANSKY</LI> <LI>J Krupansky</LI> <LI>J KRUPANSKY</LI> <LI>J. W. Krupansky</LI> <LI>J. W. KRUPANSKY</LI> <LI>J W Krupansky</LI> <LI>J W KRUPANSKY</LI> <LI>Krupansky, J.</LI> <LI>KRUPANSKY, J.</LI> <LI>Krupansky, J</LI> <LI>KRUPANSKY, J</LI> <LI>Krupansky, J. W.</LI> <LI>KRUPANSKY, J. W.</LI> <LI>Krupansky, J W</LI> <LI>KRUPANSKY, J W</LI></UL> <P>In some contexts, such as publication of a letter or comment, a publisher might abbreviate my last name as:</P> <UL> <LI>Jack K.</LI> <LI>John K.</LI> <LI>John W. K.</LI></UL> <P>Oh, I forgot to mention that my middle <EM>W.</EM> stands for <EM>William</EM>. So my birth certificate says <EM>John William Krupansky</EM>. My passport says:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P>KRUPANSKY<BR>JOHN WILLIAM</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please note that "J. Krupansky", "J Krupansky" and "J KRUPANSKY"&nbsp;are <EM>not necessarily</EM> my name. In <EM>some</EM> contexts the "J"&nbsp;is really an abbreviation for <EM>Judge</EM>. There&nbsp;are&nbsp;only two examples I know of, but they are (were) real: <EM>Judge Robert Brazil Krupansky</EM> and <EM>Judge Blanche Krupansky</EM>. They are not relatives as far as I know. They might be <EM>distant</EM> relatives, but that is not known.</P> <P>Did I say that <EM>John Krupansky</EM> is my name? Well, yes, but it is not only <EM>my</EM> name. A Web search shows that there are at least two <EM>other</EM> people who "have" that name, so I cannot technically claim exclusive ownership. There is a <EM>John Krupansky</EM> from upstate NY or Kentucky and there is a <EM>John Joseph Krupansky</EM> out there somewhere.</P> <P>Almost forgot, there was another <EM>John Krupansky</EM>, even before I was born, a <EM>John F. Krupansky</EM> or <EM>John Frank Krupansky</EM>, my grandfather. That may be part of the reason I became <EM>known as</EM> "Jack". The rest of the reason was that in first grade of elementary school, there were <EM>four</EM> John's out of 20 kids.</P> <P>As far as I know, there are no other <EM>John W. Krupansky</EM>'s out there. But, that is not something that we can count on.</P> <P>You would think that with all of the "intelligence" and horsepower in modern computers that all of these variations could be sorted out with <EM>no effort </EM>required on our part, but that is not the case. Sure, various pieces of software do have varying degrees of <EM>smarts</EM> for dealing with names, but the emphasis is on <EM>varying</EM>.</P> <P>Each of the various <EM>John Krupansky</EM>'s does indeed have a distinct <EM>identity</EM> (probably at least social security number, driver's license state and number, and residential address), but automatically <EM>mapping</EM> from <EM>John Krupansky</EM> or <EM>J Krupansky</EM> or <EM>Krupansky, J.</EM> to each of us is as yet an unsolved problem (in general.)</P> <P>As far as I know, the Semantic Web and&nbsp;the various Semantic Web technologies as well&nbsp;as the various prototype semantic search engines&nbsp;do not even offer a <EM>proposed</EM> solution to this problem of mapping an informal&nbsp;textual name reference to a specific identity. In theory, on the Semantic Web there should be a specific <EM>concept</EM> or URI for each of us <EM>Johns</EM> or <EM>Krupansky, J.</EM>, for each of our identities.&nbsp;In fact, the situation is so complex that even Google does not offer a name search capability that is able to deal with the simple variations I have detailed here.</P> <P>Oops, I forgot another variation, back in Europe, there was an accent on the <EM>y</EM> of <EM>Krupansky</EM> and you can even use Google to find some of those European Krupansky's. Semantic search needs to be able to handle both the accented and unaccented forms as well as an option for whether to require the accents to match.</P> <P>The good news, for me personally, is that it does not appear that there is any other <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> out there, at least right now.</P> <P>Oh, and who is <EM>Jack Krupanski</EM>? Well, it's actually me, but spelled wrong. What computer software knows <EM>that</EM>?</P> <P>To some people I am <EM>Mr. John Krupansky</EM>. Is the <EM>Mr.</EM> part of my name? Good question.</P> <P>Almost forgot... there are also people out there who insist that my name is <EM>jack krupansky</EM> without any capitals. In general, capitalization does not matter, but it can matter when text is being parsed to be indexed and software is attempting to recognize names.</P> <P>At this stage, I think we need to consider the following for any <EM>semantic</EM> web:</P> <OL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Ultimately, each person needs to have a unique URI that represents <EM>their identity</EM>.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">That identity needs to include all of the name components, such as first name, middle name, last name, suffix, title, nick name, etc. as attributes.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Each of the various forms of your name needs to have its own URI. That should include misspellings, for example, <EM>Jack Krupanski</EM>. That also includes variations in titles and suffixes.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">There should be RDF for many-to-many mappings between the various identities for&nbsp;each name form and the potential identities that share that name form, so that given a name form the possible identities can be&nbsp;examined and given an identity the possible name forms can be examined.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Whether in a UI or an API, given a name form, it should be possible to examine the various name forms that <EM>might</EM> be <EM>equivalent</EM>.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Have the concept of <EM>preferred name&nbsp;form</EM>. But there could be multiple preferred forms, such as nick name vs. legal name.</DIV></LI></OL> <P>Back to the headline question, for any legal context I always use <EM>John W. Krupansky</EM>. But, sometimes, I actually run into a form that does not request a middle initial, so then I am <EM>John Krupansky</EM>. Even then, legal contexts tend to include one or more of social security number, drivers license state and number, and residential address. Still, it feels odd using a form of name that I know is not unique.</P> <P>In non-legal contexts, such as random social networking web sites, I almost always use <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM>. I do the same for business cards as well, although I have thought of switching to using my legal first name on business cards.</P> <P>My resume has <EM>John William Krupansky</EM> plus <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> and happens to use <EM>John W. Krupansky</EM> in the copyright notice.</P> <P>The other answer to the question is that I respond by asking what field format you need my name in (and whether it is for a "legal" context.) Actually, I usually respond with <EM>Jack Krupansky</EM> and then optionally revise to <EM>John</EM> if it becomes clear that it is a legal context.</P> <P>In any case, I am dubious when I run into a single field such as <EM>name</EM>, <EM>author</EM>, or <EM>creator</EM> that doesn't seem to <EM>care</EM> what form a name is in. That is fine for famous names, but for everybody else it is a recipe for confusion. The solution is to require the <EM>identity URI</EM> for the person and to have a convenient UI for looking up names.</P> <P>If it was up to me, I would <EM>bad</EM> simple text <EM>name</EM> fields. Or maybe not ban them but require a validation rule that checks for uniqueness and then automatically maps to the true identity.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1001591203593717829?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-78812245265248566202009-07-06T12:58:00.000-04:002009-07-06T12:59:08.572-04:00<P>If we look simply at the term <EM>Semantic Web</EM>, we assume that it is a web that has something to do with <EM>semantics</EM>, and semantics essentially is about <EM>meaning</EM>. I think most (but not all)&nbsp;people can agree with that. The rub comes when we try to figure out what various factions mean by meaning. Some of the common meanings of meaning (semantics):</P> <UL> <LI>The association of <EM>type</EM> with data so as to permit a computer to <EM>understand</EM> what the data <EM>means</EM> at the level of <EM>which</EM> type a given piece of data refers to. <LI>Denotation of which object is referred to by words or terms, such as in a dictionary. <LI>Human-level understanding of the "meaning", potentially (or even usually) subjective, of words, terms, and statements. <LI>Human-level "meaning" in a deeper, more personalized sense&nbsp;for an individual, how someone feels about&nbsp;or experiences a concept. <LI><EM>Rich knowledge</EM> as opposed to mere information or raw data, that permits the reader to infer a much wider range of truth and acceptable behavior. <LI><EM>Formal semantics</EM> of computer science used to define a domain and the operations permitted over that domain in such a way that is <EM>complete</EM>, <EM>consistent</EM>, <EM>unambiguous </EM>(<EM>accurate</EM>), and <EM>verifiable</EM>. Even that begs the question of whether a description of a domain on a computer accurately matches <EM>the real world</EM> as it exists or as we <EM>think</EM> we <EM>know</EM> it. <LI><EM>Artificial intelligence</EM> (or <EM>computational intelligence</EM>) applying formal semantics to attempt to approximate human-level understanding. <LI>Simple <EM>tagging</EM> to point from a term (e.g., keyword)&nbsp;to an object to cue a computer program as to the intended "meaning" of a term. <LI>Simple textual <EM>natural language</EM>, even if in simple HTML or simple XML can embody an incredible range of meaning, although full processing of natural language by non-human entities&nbsp;is still only a partially solved problem.</LI></UL> <P>The question of what "semantic" means in Semantic Web now comes down to the issue of <EM>how much</EM> and <EM>what kind</EM> of meaning is embodied in the Semantic Web. Alternatively phrased, <EM>is there enough semantic meaning</EM> embodied in the so-called Semantic Web to warrant the term "semantic"? Some might contend that the existing conceptualization of the Semantic Web is too weak, while others might asset that all of the complexity of RDF is simply not needed for most contemporary applications that need to work with limited forms of "meaning." In the end (or at the beginning), the folks at W3C made a call and sincerely believed that their concept of the Semantic Web was a <EM>close enough</EM> match between what they believed was needed and what they believed could be done. Whether their views will hold up over time remains to be seen.</P> <P>At a primitive, operational level the Semantic Web really is just&nbsp;a <EM>Web of data</EM> or a <EM>Web of Linked Data</EM>. The&nbsp;modifier&nbsp;<EM>typed</EM> is implicit in there, since that is where most of the power comes from.&nbsp;This operational view&nbsp;is not denied, and most agree with that characterization, even if they chafe or disagree with the term Semantic Web per se.</P> <P>Others believe that raw XML (and related non-RDF technologies)&nbsp;by itself is more than sufficient to represent and manipulate the lion share of the kinds of "meaning" that people need today in their applications. Fair enough, as far as it goes. RDF has somewhat grander goals, but many contemporary applications can do just fine with a subset of non-RDF XML-based technologies. But none of that really is a robust argument against RDF enabling a <EM>richer</EM> form of Semantic Web.</P> <P>The hard-core computer scientists probably do have a point that the current RDF-based technology stack still isn't quite up to snuff to qualify as a <EM>formal semantics</EM>, but even that is not a truly robust argument against billing the RDF-based Semantic Web as a <EM>major</EM> advance in introducing semantics and meaning into the Web of Linked Data. Yes, the computer scientists can reasonably argue that we can and should do better to produce a <EM>true semantic web</EM>, but once again that is not a great argument to withhold the "semantic" label per se. Sometimes you can make better progress with your known&nbsp;bird in hand than spend too much effort pursuing another bird or two in the bush. Some might claim that alternative approaches are <EM>less risky</EM>, but such matters can be debated endlessly without resolution. Sometimes it is better to make rapid, informed&nbsp;decisions and run with&nbsp;them rather than to slow progress with an endless stream of second-guessed decisions. Or, who knows, maybe eventually there will be a "Version 2.0" of the Semantic Web which leapfrogs ahead of the current Semantic Web with a more robust sense of formal semantics.</P> <P>Some of us would really like to see more of a <EM>Knowledge Web</EM> that goes well beyond merely linking together lots of typed data and it is not clear at all that the current RDF-based Semantic Web technology stack is indeed well-suited for that purpose, but even this is not a valid block to the use of the "semantic" label. One could also argue that a "knowledge" web needs more than "mere" semantics, including <EM>pragmatics</EM> and full-blown&nbsp;<EM>semiotics</EM>, but that certainly does not argue for withholding the "semantic" label.</P> <P>More recently, a lot of the emphasis in the Semantic Web community is on <EM>Linked Data</EM>, <EM>Linking Open Data</EM>, and producing and populating a realistic <EM>Web of Linked Data</EM>. That is all fine and well and good, but once again does not by itself argue against the use of the "semantic" label.</P> <P>My personal view is that all of these efforts are at heart attempts to increase the emphasis on <EM>meaning</EM>. Even if any given effort does not meet some impossibly high bar for the meaning of meaning, I do think it is the direction and intention of our efforts that matter. Sure, many of the current efforts focus simply on replicating basic data and information processing capabilities at Web-scale, but ultimately we are trying to get to the original Semantic Web vision of a comprehensive information infrastructure that <EM>software agents</EM> can use to automate a much broader swath of our manual tasks.</P> <P>My other view is that the decision was made years ago and does have at least <EM>some</EM> valid technical and communication value, so we have more to gain by sticking with it than in jumping ship to some other term that may offer some short-term clarity but possibly at the expense of losing focus on the long-term vision.</P> <P>Meanwhile, "meaning" can be found wherever it is stored, whether in RDF, RSS, XML, HTML, or raw text. <EM>Storing</EM> that meaning can be rather straightforward, but <EM>interpreting</EM> it is another story. Simple file structures have obvious advantages, but RDF is designed to be a&nbsp;long enough <EM>reach</EM> to give us some real <EM>intellectual leverage</EM> over non-RDF XML, but short enough reach that real applications are practical today, or at least in the not-too-distant future.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7881224526524856620?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-59213790658761012432009-07-04T08:59:00.000-04:002009-07-04T09:00:03.922-04:00<P>Quite a few people and organizations have been busily slaving away on the development of the Semantic Web for a number of years now, so <STRONG><EM>where exactly is the Semantic Web?</EM></STRONG> Not what stage of development it is at, but where do we go to find it? At a simplistic, operational level the Semantic Web is <EM>fragmented</EM> and <EM>scattered</EM> over a significant number of <EM>Web servers</EM> all around the world. If you know where to look, you can find bits and pieces here and there. The bottom line is that it is still too early in the development of the Semantic Web to think of it as one monolithic (although distributed)&nbsp;"thing" the way we think of the traditional World Wide Web.</P> <P>In truth, the structure of the Semantic Web is really not a lot different than the existing Web. Both consist of files stored on servers that run Web server software and both are based on hyperlinks from one file to another.</P> <P>But, if you did not know anything about the content of the current Web, where would you start? There actually isn't a logical answer since there is no master "root" of the Web. Sure, you could consider Google to be the place to start, but how would you even know about Google and even Google doesn't know everything about the Web, at least in a form that a user could make any sense out of.</P> <P>Back in the early days of the Web (vintage 1994 or 1995)&nbsp;the "answer" was one of:</P> <UL> <LI>Your Web browser was pre-configured with a "home" page that had a bunch of links to interesting Web pages. <LI>Somebody gave you an explicit URL which you carefully typed into the Web browser address box, or copy and pasted the URL from an email message. <LI>You browsed the Yahoo "directory" of registered web sites, including its "What's New" page. <LI>You used the Lycos search engine&nbsp;from Carnegie Mellon University to search for keywords and then browsed through the results to select a web page. Alta Vista, and a number of other search engines came along, and <EM>eventually</EM> Google joined the fray. <LI>Once you "land" on one Web page you can follow links from that page to a number of other pages. Rinse and repeat and you could quickly navigate "all over" the Web. Or at least it <EM>seemed</EM> as if you were navigating "everywhere", although in actuality you were viewing only a very tiny portion of the vast Web, even in those early days. <LI>Paper trade publications and even the traditional media began to review and highlight Web sites and Web resources. Eventually those publications opened shop online on the Web with the text of those articles&nbsp;and the links to those Web sites and resources could be clicked to quickly navigate. <LI>Businesses advertised their Web addresses in magazines, newspapers, TV, and even billboards, as well as business cards and brochures. <LI>Gradually, a number of Web <EM>portals</EM> emerged which endeavored to provide you with dense snapshots of portions of the Web that the authors <EM>imagined</EM> that you would find useful - news, sports, weather, finance, entertainment, etc. <LI>Google introduced (or at least popularized) the concept of ranking search results more highly based on popularity or the number of inbound links for each Web page. This allowed users to find higher quality and more <EM>relevant</EM> Web pages with far less effort. <LI>Web <EM>advertising</EM> emerged, providing another technique for informing the user of Web pages that they might find of interest. <LI>Search engines began "crawling" and indexing ever-larger portions of the total Web, making it more likely that if a Web page existed, then the user could find it if they only had the proper combination of keywords. <LI>Web site content developers put an interesting amount of effort into soliciting other Web sites to <EM>exchange links</EM> to provide more paths to their sites as well as to boost their "Google juice" to get a higher ranking in Google's search results. <LI><EM>Search Engine Optimization (SEO)</EM> and <EM>Search Engine Marketing (SEM)</EM> became full-fledged "disciplines" to increase the likelihood that users would "find" targeted Web sites. <LI>Web 2.0 emerged with blogs, spaces, and various social media and social networking sites and technologies which enabled <EM>mere users</EM> and a wide range of professionals&nbsp;to rapidly generate their own content, including links to content that they found interesting. <LI>Highly specialized Web sites (including Web 2.0 sites)&nbsp;emerged that catered to advising users what they might find interesting, including <A href="http://www.techmeme.com/">TechMeme</A>, <A href="http://www.techcrunch.com/">TechCrunch</A>, <A href="http://digg.com/">Digg</A>, <A href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/">StumbleUpon</A>, and <A href="http://twitter.com/">Twitter</A>.</LI></UL> <P>That's a brief summary of where we are today with the traditional Web in terms of how users can view the available content and answer the question "<EM>Where is the Web?</EM>" In short, there are plenty of "arrows" pointing users to an interesting subset of the total World Wide Web.</P> <P>Unfortunately, the Semantic Web does not have this kind of rich support infrastructure, yet.</P> <P>Sure, you can do a search for "Semantic Web" in Google, but mostly they will get you resources that <EM>describe</EM> the Semantic Web and its <EM>technologies</EM>, but will not point you to the Semantic Web itself.</P> <P>There is a foundation question of the extent to which mere users would even want to know <EM>anything</EM> about the Semantic Web since it is all about <EM>data</EM> rather than <EM>presentation</EM> that users are used to with the traditional Web. Instead, it is <EM>applications</EM> and <EM>application developers</EM> who "need to know" where the Semantic Web data resides. Still, application developers do need a lot of the kinds of tools that are available for traditional Web site developers to find what is available on the Semantic Web that they can <EM>use</EM>. The fact that the Semantic Web architecture encourages <EM>code</EM> to be able to <EM>discover</EM> resources directly only makes the problem more difficult, and more interesting.</P> <P>Some might assert that the Semantic Web <EM>should</EM> be <EM>completely invisible</EM> to users, but they are promoting a view that access to data should be <EM>controlled</EM> by various gatekeepers. In contrast, the view of <EM>open</EM> data, such as the <EM>Open Data Movement</EM> is that there should be no gatekeepers to prevent or enforce selective&nbsp;filtering of&nbsp;access or filtering of the data. Over time, developers will develop better and better tools that will&nbsp; allow even users to manipulate complex data as directly as they desire. We aren't there yet, but the vision is there. Sure, there will still be plenty of need and demand for ever more-sophisticated&nbsp; tools for filtering and presenting data, including so-called <EM>mashups</EM> for combining data from many sources, but the emphasis is still on transparency so that the user can still discern where the data really came from. No matter how finely or richly data is presented, users should be always be able to do their own mashups and filtering of data, as they see fit. The bottom line is that users <EM>should</EM> have direct access to the data of the Semantic Web, and hence that the Semantic Web <EM>must be visible</EM>. But, Semantic Web data will also in some cases&nbsp;be <EM>integrated</EM> with traditional Web applications so that users may indirectly "access" the Semantic Web without being aware that the Semantic Web is being accessed or that it even exists at all.</P> <P>Another model is that the Semantic Web would be more of an <EM>on-call phantom</EM>, lurking in the background, but always available to be brought to the foreground if and when the user desires. Maybe the user will generally see a more traditional Web page interface, but occasionally drill down to examine the data more closely. For example, a Web page might present a conclusion, but the user may want to see the justification or provenance for that conclusion.</P> <P>Still, even if the user does occasionally wish to see actual data, in general the Semantic Web should <EM>vanish into <STRONG>transparent ubiquity</STRONG></EM>, meaning that it is always there, always everywhere, but generally is effectively <EM>invisible</EM>. But even if that is the case, users will on occasion still want to know <EM>where</EM> the data is and how to access and use it.</P> <P>Eventually, as the Semantic Web does in fact become <EM>ubiquitous</EM>, it will in fact merge with the traditional Web so that there will once again be only <EM>one Web</EM>, but there will still be the conception of the <EM>Web of data</EM> that lies beneath the surface UI and presentation layer.</P> <P>For now, how do you find out what is available on the Semantic Web? I'll summarize <EM>some</EM> of the current techniques:</P> <UL> <LI>Subscribe to various Semantic Web email lists and simply read about Semantic Web resources as they are discussed. In some cases projects are mentioned and you can visit the project web site to find out where the relevant Semantic Web data resources reside. <LI>Ditto for trade journals and conference proceedings for the Semantic Web. <LI>A friend or colleague emails you a link to Semantic Web data. <LI>Using a <EM>data browser</EM> such as <A href="http://www.w3.org/2005/ajar/tab">Tabulator</A>, view a Semantic Web data source and then navigate data links much as you navigate links from a traditional Web page. <LI>Check out the wiki for the more recent <A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/">Linking Open Data (LOD)&nbsp;community project</A>. One wiki&nbsp;page lists many of the <A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets">known Semantic Web Linked Data datasets for the emerging Web of Linked Data</A>.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is a nice <A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/#head-277d7f68544ce1a9e252f5c0080b6402cd983a49">bubble diagram that shows the various LOD&nbsp;datasets and their relationships</A>. This represents the best overall view of the Semantic Web, to date. <LI>People are beginning to create search engine-like "crawlers" to index the known fragments of the LOD portion of the Semantic Web as <EM>caches</EM> of the <EM>LOD cloud</EM>. For example, <A href="http://lod2.openlinksw.com/">OpenLink Software provides this cache of the LOD cloud</A>&nbsp;that supports text searches and queries. <LI>There are also some experimental <EM>semantic web search engines</EM> such as <A href="http://swoogle.umbc.edu/">Swoogle</A>. <LI>Various <EM>semantic databases</EM>, such as <A href="http://www.freebase.com/">Freebase</A> are beginning to provide Linked Data interfaces. <LI>Vendors are beginning to promote Semantic Web data that they are beginning to provide, either as RDF files or as so-called SPARQL endpoints. <LI>Some vendors are providing access to their underlying relational databases, once again in the form of SPARQL endpoints. <LI>With <EM>Linked Data</EM>, once you access one element of data you will generally have the opportunity to navigate to other, <EM>linked</EM> data, much as you would navigate the traditional Web by following links. <LI><EM>RDFa</EM> permits the embedding of Semantic Web data within HTML Web pages, so that the traditional Web and the Semantic Web can&nbsp;in at least some situations be <EM>co-located</EM>. <LI>Google and Yahoo are in the early stages of experimenting with Semantic Web technologies, so we can expect that users will eventually be able to "find" interesting portions of the Semantic Web directly from our traditional search engines. <LI><EM>Plug-ins</EM> for traditional Web browsers are available or under development or in the research stage so that users will eventually be able to "see" the Semantic Web directly from the Web browser.</LI></UL> <P>That's what I have discovered so far and my search is only in the early stages. I am sure there are additional resources (about resources) that I have not yet discovered, and the "industry" is still in the early development stages, maybe comparable to the Web in, say, 1994, before Yahoo appeared on the scene and helped promote a user-friendly approach to promoting Web resources.</P> <P>Some loose ends:</P> <UL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">How does non-RDF XML-based data relate to the Semantic Web and Linked Data (Linking of Open Data)?</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">How do RSS feeds relate to the Semantic Web? RSS feeds are problematic in at least one sense: they are frequently only a severe <EM>subset</EM> of the available data, so they certainly do not provide full access to the underlying data.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Data in online text files&nbsp;and non-W3C data formats, including CSV and spreadsheet files that users can directly access from the Web. Some sort of automated translation or "adaptor module" approach is needed so that such data can be accessed as if it were in a Semantic Web format.</DIV></LI></UL> <P>Maybe one over-simplistic answer to my question is that the Semantic Web is spread all over the place, but you just need to know where and <EM>how</EM> to look for it.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5921379065876101243?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-26806612516944378042009-07-02T16:19:00.000-04:002009-07-02T16:20:00.852-04:00<P><EM>LOD</EM> is an acronym for <EM>Linking Open Data</EM>, although sometimes in is less correctly referred to as <EM>Linked Open Data</EM>. A set of principles for <EM><A href="http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html">Linked Data</A></EM>&nbsp;were espoused by Tim Berners-Lee. Unlike the traditional Web which consists of hyperlinked HTML Web pages, Linked Data consists of hyperlinked data in the form of RDF triples.&nbsp;Technically, <EM>cloud</EM> usually refers to a network of servers, but sometimes it is used to refer to interconnected <EM>data</EM>, essentially a synonym for <EM>Web</EM>. The <EM>LOD cloud</EM>, or&nbsp;<EM>Linking Open Data cloud</EM>,&nbsp;is the current totality of the interconnected data produced by the <EM>Open Data Movement</EM>&nbsp;in the form of&nbsp;the <A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData">W3C SWEO Linking Open Data community project</A>. <EM>SWEO</EM> refers to the <EM><A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG">W3C Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group</A></EM>. </P> <P>The LOD cloud is essentially the rudimentary beginning of <EM>the Web of Data</EM> or <EM>Semantic Web</EM> as envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee.</P> <P>The LOD cloud is also referred to as a <EM>data commons</EM>. The intention is that all of the data in the LOD cloud is <EM>open</EM> and freely available. Usually "open" will mean that at a minimum the data is at least <EM>accessible</EM>. It is also usually expected that the data&nbsp;can be <EM>freely copied</EM>, but that may not always be the case, depending on the license for a particular subset (data set) for a particular source or supplier. The ultimate sense of openness is that the data may be freely <EM>edited</EM> by users, but that frequently is not the case, especially for proprietary data or data from a government agency which controls the data. It may be more appropriate to refer to the entire cloud as the <EM>Linked Data cloud</EM>, and the more open subset as the <EM>LOD cloud</EM> (<EM>Linked Open Data cloud</EM>), but such fine distinctions are generally currently not drawn.</P> <P>The LOD cloud is sometimes referred to as the <EM>LOD data cloud</EM>, but clearly that is redundant (<EM>Linking Open Data data cloud</EM>.)</P> <P>The term <EM>LOD dataset</EM> (or <EM>LOD data set</EM>) is sometimes used to refer a well-defined subset of the LOD cloud, such as the data for a specific <EM>application</EM> or <EM>domain</EM> or <EM>data source</EM>. The term <EM>LOD datasets</EM> or (<EM>LOD data sets</EM>) refers to some collection of specific LOD data sets, or possibly even all of the datasets in the cloud. The <A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData/DataSets">SWEO wiki maintains a list of the known data sets in the LOD cloud</A>.</P> <P>The concept of data&nbsp;being published to the&nbsp;LOD cloud or the Web is also known as <EM>Linked Data on the Web (LDOW</EM>) or sometimes even the <EM>Semantic Web on the Web</EM>.</P> <P>Another term sometimes used for the LOD cloud is <EM>Web of Linked Data</EM>.</P> <P>The term <EM>Linked Data Cloud</EM> is also sometimes used for the LOD cloud.</P> <P>The term <EM>Linking Open Data on the Semantic Web</EM> is sometimes used to refer to the LOD cloud.</P> <P>Sometimes the term <EM>LOD cloud</EM> is simply used to refer to the <A href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData">"cloud" diagram&nbsp;or bubble diagram that shows all&nbsp;of the known data sets in the LOD cloud</A>.</P> <P>For most all intents and purposes, the <STRONG>LOD cloud</STRONG> is the <STRONG>Semantic Web</STRONG> or the <STRONG>Web of Data</STRONG>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2680661251694437804?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-77086705812578601392009-07-01T12:46:00.000-04:002009-07-01T12:47:06.022-04:00<P>One clarification I forgot to emphasize clearly enough in <A href="http://semanticabyss.blogspot.com/2009/07/linked-data-web-of-data-and-semantic.html">my recent post on Linked Data</A> is that the real goal of Linked Data is for a given Semantic Web application to link to <EM>instance data</EM> of other Semantic Web applications, not merely to reuse&nbsp;existing <EM>metadata</EM>. The goal is to aid <EM>discovery</EM> of <EM>other things</EM> by users (and their agents). Reuse of metadata such as vocabularies and schemas is a really good idea, but not sufficient to connect <EM>things</EM> into a Semantic Web.</P> <P>An unfortunate side effect of using the single concept of a URI to refer to both data and metadata is that the emphasis on <EM>linking</EM> gets diffused onto both usages.</P> <P>In summary, reuse of existing vocabularies and other metadata from other Semantic Web applications is good, but linking&nbsp;to instance data from other Semantic Web applications&nbsp;is what Linked Data is really trying to get at.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7708670581257860139?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-2709765148388607622009-07-01T12:03:00.001-04:002009-07-01T12:03:47.818-04:00<P>I have been wanting to write a post on the relationship of <STRONG>Linked Data</STRONG> and <STRONG>the Web of Data</STRONG> to the Semantic Web, but even now I am still struggling to get a secure handle on the distinctions between these three related concepts. Meanwhile, I stumbled across a relevant blog post by Tom Heath on the topic entitled "<A href="http://tomheath.com/blog/2009/03/linked-data-web-of-data-semantic-web-wtf/">Linked Data? Web of Data? Semantic Web? WTF?</A>" It's difficult to get a hard-core representative summary, but a semi-reasonable approximation is:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>... in common usage Linked Data refers to the <A href="http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html">principles</A> set out by Tim Berners-Lee in 2006.</EM></P> <P><EM>So if we <STRONG>link data together using Web technologies</STRONG>, and according to these principles, the result is a <STRONG>Web of data</STRONG>. Personally I use the term Web of data largely interchangeably with the term Semantic Web, although not everyone in the Semantic Web world would agree with this. The precise term I use depends on the audience. With Semantic Web geeks I say Semantic Web, with others I tend to say Web of data&nbsp;-- it's not about rebranding, it's about using terms that make sense to your audience, and Web of data speaks to people much more clearly than Semantic Web. Similarly, Linked Data isn't about rebranding the Semantic Web, it's about clarifying its fundamentals.</EM></P> <P><EM>Tim Berners-Lee said several times last year, in public, that "<STRONG>Linked Data is the Semantic Web done right</STRONG>" (e.g. see <A href="http://www.w3.org/2008/Talks/0617-lod-tbl/#(3)">these slides</A> from Linked Data Planet in New York), and who am I to argue, it's his vision. </EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I am still not prepared to write the definitive post on this topic, but here is the gist of my current research:</P> <OL> <LI>W3C offers a number of <EM>Semantic Web technologies</EM>, including XML, XML Schema, RDF, RDFS, RDFa, OWL, SPARQL, XSLT, and others. <LI>The <EM>Semantic Web</EM> is&nbsp;the <EM>vision</EM> of the <EM>World Wide Web</EM> that utilizes the Semantic Web Technologies, particularly RDF as its core. <LI><EM>Any application</EM> can utilize any one or more of the Semantic Web technologies. <LI>Mere use of Semantic Web technologies does not by itself indicate that the application is a <EM>Semantic Web application.</EM> <LI>A <EM>Semantic Web application</EM> is first and foremost a <EM>Web application</EM>, typically accessible on the World Wide Web, that utilizes Semantic Web technologies, and specifically uses RDF (or RDFa)&nbsp;for making <EM>statements about (Semantic) Web resources</EM>. <LI>A Semantic Web application might typically include a more traditional Web application (e.g., HTML) combined with underlying Semantic Web resources. <LI><EM>Web of Data</EM> is simply a <EM>casual synonym</EM> for the Semantic Web that emphasizes that like the original, non-Semantic Web, the Semantic Web consists of an interconnected <EM>Web</EM>&nbsp;of resources, but they are <EM>data resources</EM>&nbsp;described&nbsp;at their core using RDF (or RDFa)&nbsp;rather than merely&nbsp;<EM>presentation resources</EM> (HTML web pages.) <LI><EM>Linked Data</EM> is not introducing any new technologies, but is simply a <EM>collection of principles</EM> that&nbsp;emphasize that the Semantic Web (or Web of Data) has much greater utility to its users when data resources tend to <EM>refer</EM> to other, somewhat related data resources that may not necessarily be directly required by the local Semantic Web application. <LI>Put simply, Linked Data enables the user (or computational <EM>user agent</EM>) to navigate <EM>between</EM> Semantic Web applications (data resources). <LI>Even a proprietary application that uses Semantic Web technologies may also utilize resources (e.g., vocabularies or schemas) from elsewhere in the Semantic Web, but the real test of whether an application is a <EM>true</EM> Semantic Web application is whether <EM>other</EM> applications in turn reference it. It is this expanding&nbsp;<EM>chain of referencing</EM> to produce an ever-expanding and ever more-heavily interconnected Web that gives the Semantic Web its true "<EM>webbiness</EM>", not the mere use of the underlying Semantic Web technologies by themselves.</LI></OL> <P>That model is not entirely accurate, but I think it's a good start. I need to include mention of HTTP and URIs; they are not unique to the Semantic Web, but are essential.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-270976514838860762?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-40838849161571395162009-06-11T12:02:00.000-04:002009-06-11T12:03:05.821-04:00<P>Time is a critical aspect of many forms of knowledge. So, what is time? At a simplistic level, time is simply an ordering of moments at which events occur or could occur. Given any two events or moments, they either occur simultaneously, or one before the other and one after the other. Events can also partially overlap, so we technically should speak of the sub-events of when each event begins and when they end. For the purpose of this discussion it is those indivisible sub-events that are of significance.</P> <P>Traditionally, we "measure" time by choosing some periodic and regular event and simply counting the occurrences of that event.</P> <P>This begs the question of what an "event" is. At a simplistic level, an event is motion or propagation that is detectable. Put another way, an event is a detectable&nbsp;<EM>change</EM> in position or appearance.&nbsp;Motion includes chemical reactions, biological processes, and physical state changes. At the microscopic level motion may simply be large numbers of particles (molecules, atoms, subatomic particles)&nbsp;that move so that a macroscopic change is&nbsp;detectable. We need to use the term detectable in a theoretical sense of <EM>could</EM> something be detectable rather than the practical sense of whether we do in fact have usable tools to accomplish the detection. Time is the fact that the change occurred (an event), separate from our observation of the change (the event).&nbsp;Propagation includes a field or force or "wave" of some sort&nbsp;that travels some distance. At a human scale we depend on propagation to sense that motion has occurred, but in those cases it is the change in motion that signifies time rather than the role of propagation in aiding us in sensing the change in motion.</P> <P>Rather than using transient events, we can also look for changes in <EM>conditions</EM> and look at the <EM>interval</EM> of time over which that condition is true. Ultimately, that is the same as looking at the pair of events, one of which corresponds to the start of the condition and the other of which corresponds to the end of the condition. Obviously events of some other form must be transpiring during that interval in order for us to judge that the interval of time&nbsp;is occurring.</P> <P>So, we use time to measure and specify <EM>when</EM> an event occurred (or a condition changed) as well as the length of the interval between two events or the duration of a condition.</P> <P>Now, what about the gaps between the occurrences of events, does time exist and "pass" (or "flow") in those gaps? If no detectable physical process can occur during the gap, I would say that time does not exist for the duration of the gap. The trivial answer is that since we can not detect the presence of the gap (i.e., two events <EM>seem</EM> to occur one right after the other), then there actually isn't any gap.</P> <P>What is the smallest detectable motion or propagation that is detectable? Don't know. Is that the true <EM>unit</EM> of time? Maybe. Since we do not know that unit, we traditionally use some larger unit, typically the <EM>second</EM>, and refer to fractions of that unit. Conceptually, we can divide that unit ever finer so that conceptually we are referring to intervals which are smaller than the smallest intervals of motion and propagation that theoretically could be detectable, or at least have detected so far. Conceptually, we can do the math to refer to hypothetical moments of time which never existed as detectable events. But from a practical, human perspective, that is not much of an issue.</P> <P>Humans also have their minds and even without observing events in the outside world can envision the passage of time. One's breathing or beating heart or blinking eyes can provide the periodic events needed to detect and measure the passage of time. Mental state changes (how fast can you think or count?) can also supply the events needed to detect the passage of time. At this human level, there is probably a cognitive "unit" of time which is the smallest interval that a typical human mind can detect. There is probably a smaller unit which would be the smallest unit of chemical and electrical and biological activity that a device could detect, but that is no longer the "human" unit of time.</P> <P>At a macroscopic level, the motion of the sun, sunrise and sunset, movement and phases of the moon and stars, turns of seasons, movements of migratory animals, life cycle changes, sun spot cycles, comets, and other natural phenomena provide periodic event sequences needed to detect and measure the passage of time.</P> <P>We can also measure time in a social sense in terms of ages and eras, times when particular technologies or values or modes of behavior&nbsp;are prevalent. Once again, events and changes are used to "measure" the rise and fall of a socially significant period of time.</P> <P>And, we can also similarly measure the natural world in terms of geological and biological events and conditions that change.</P> <P>Then there is time at the cosmic scale, with the birth, evolution, and death of stars, galaxies, and other cosmic structures. Millions and billions of years.</P> <P>And we also have time at the sub-atomic level that is of concern to physicists, but that is a rather distinct discussion.</P> <P>Ultimately, we measure all of this on a single, combined scale ranging over:</P> <UL> <LI>Fractions of seconds, down to a billionth or even a billionth of a billionth of a second</LI> <LI>Seconds</LI> <LI>Minutes</LI> <LI>Hours</LI> <LI>Days</LI> <LI>Weeks</LI> <LI>Months</LI> <LI>Years</LI> <LI>Decades</LI> <LI>Centuries</LI> <LI>Millennia</LI> <LI>Millions of years</LI> <LI>Billions of years</LI></UL> <P>A future topic is: What does time <EM>mean</EM>? Does time itself have any <EM>meaning</EM>, apart from the meaning of events that we are measuring? Or, is time itself inherently, and almost by definition <EM>meaningless</EM>? Maybe not. We can certainly refer to time as an "object of discourse", which would of course have meaning. But, time itself, distinct from any events that might be occurring would seem rather meaningless. On the other hand, if we define time in terms of events occurring, maybe time is always implicitly <EM>linked</EM> to some meaning, in particular the meaning of the events that <EM>mark</EM> time. We might even go so far as to suggest that time <EM>carries</EM> meaning (i.e., time is the <EM>carrier of meaning</EM>), since without the <EM>medium</EM> of time, the events could not be transpiring and having their meaning.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4083884916157139516?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-88968769217517403972009-06-10T20:17:00.000-04:002009-06-10T20:18:14.066-04:00<P>It is a rather simple but interesting question:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>How do people relate to knowledge?</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I do not really have a great answer right now, but it does seem that it cuts to the heart of how we represent knowledge in a way that people can make sense out of.</P> <P>On the other hand, maybe the real answer is that <EM>intelligent software agents</EM> are the "way" that people "relate" to knowledge. Even so, people need a <EM>conceptual model</EM> of what and how they communicate with those software agents since the agents are merely an <EM>indirect mechanism</EM> to access the <EM>underlying knowledge</EM>. How much of that underlying structure can the agents reasonably hide?</P> <P>Maybe there is a clue from the land of databases where you have an overall <EM>schema</EM>, a <EM>storage schema</EM> for the underlying data, and multiple <EM>views</EM> each of which is specialized to the needs of a distinct audience.</P> <P>I am not convinced that is <EM>the</EM> answer, but maybe it is a clue to build on. Certainly the part about multiple audiences with different interests, needs, and abilities has got to be part of the solution.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8896876921751740397?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-85784284112204928372009-06-08T17:59:00.000-04:002009-06-08T18:07:43.755-04:00<P>Granted, physicists have a very specialized conception of time, but I wanted to ponder the various roles that time plays in our own lives. Later it would be interesting to see how the physicists would weigh in on these social conceptions.</P> <P>Some terms and concepts related to time in our lives:</P> <UL> <LI>Clocks - time within a day <LI>Calendars - time across days, weeks, months, seasons, years <LI>Measurement of time <LI>Timekeeping device <LI>Beginning <LI>Ending <LI>Expiration <LI>Time remaining <LI>Duration <LI>Interval <LI>Window of time to constrain activity <LI>Time's up <LI>Era <LI>Eon <LI>Period <LI>Period of a cluster of related events <LI>Period of shared values or common social characteristics <LI>History <LI>The past <LI>The future <LI>The here and now <LI>Right now <LI>Present&nbsp; <LI>Sometime <LI>Sometimes <LI>At times <LI>All the time <LI>All of time <LI>Same time <LI>Waiting <LI>Scheduling <LI>Periodic <LI>Intervals <LI>Continuity, continuous <LI>Continual <LI>Order of events <LI>Before <LI>After <LI>Little time left <LI>Synchronization <LI>Recording, logging <LI>Distance <LI>Age <LI>Too short to notice <LI>Too long to notice <LI>Too short to measure <LI>Too long to measure <LI>Next <LI>Previous <LI>Dependency on time <LI>Addiction to time <LI>Clock watching <LI>Value of time <LI>Monetary value of time <LI>Relative value of time (personal) <LI>Loss of time <LI>Gaining time <LI>Passage of time <LI>Time is your friend <LI>Time is your enemy <LI>Process <LI>Timing <LI>Occasional <LI>Special days <LI>Season <LI>Alignment with physical phenomena <LI>Elapse of physical processes (incl. chemical, biological, and geological) <LI>Forecast, prediction <LI>Estimate <LI>Time in fiction: time travel, time warps <LI>Time in physics <LI>Time as a dimension, a coordinate <LI>Mental dissipation <LI>Decay <LI>Entropy <LI>Birth <LI>Growth <LI>Aging <LI>Death <LI>Frequency <LI>When <LI>Impact of time <LI>Wasting time <LI>Saving time <LI>Time delay <LI>Time sharing <LI>Cycles <LI>Repetitions <LI>Unit of time <LI>Representation of time <LI>Telling time <LI>Communication of time <LI>Timeless <LI>Structure of music <LI>Local time vs. universal time <LI>Time zones <LI>Daylight savings time <LI>Father Time <LI>Fatalism <LI>Position in time <LI>Moment <LI>Verb tenses (past, present, future) <LI>Passage of time <LI>Passes&nbsp;time <LI>Simultaneous <LI>Instantaneous <LI>Time composed of moments <LI>Timeline</LI></UL> <P>Some questions:</P> <OL> <LI>Does <EM>space-time</EM> ever manifest itself in our daily lives, or do we always experience time and space as distinct dimensions? <LI>Can we define a complete <EM>ontology</EM> for time that does not depend on an ontology for space? <LI>Does time have a <EM>nature</EM>? <LI>Is time a <EM>domain</EM>? <LI>Can time ever be considered an <EM>entity</EM>? Other than the fact that a concept can be considered an entity. <LI>Can time be detected other than due to <EM>motion</EM> of objects or <EM>emission</EM> of energy? <LI>Is time in <EM>constant movement</EM>? <LI>Can time ever be <EM>frozen</EM> temporarily or permanently? <LI>Can time itself actually be <EM>observed</EM>? <LI>Can time itself actually have a <EM>rate</EM>? <LI>Can time itself <EM>cause</EM> anything? <LI>Can anything <EM>cause</EM> time itself? <LI>Whether or not spatial objects can travel in time, can time itself <EM>travel</EM>? <LI>Does time have only <EM>quantity</EM> but not <EM>quality</EM>? <LI>Is there a <EM>quantum</EM> of time? <LI>Is there a <EM>theoretical</EM> time distinct from <EM>observable</EM> time? <LI>Can time be <EM>discontinuous</EM>? <LI>Does time <EM>branch</EM>? <LI>Are there parallel <EM>timelines</EM>? <LI>If there are parallel universes, is time <EM>parallel</EM> or independent in each universe?</LI></OL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8578428411220492837?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-31021458882764089112009-05-29T18:39:00.001-04:002009-05-29T18:39:51.612-04:00<P>There is no question that with Semantic Web technologies we could produce a "better" <EM>Knowledge Web</EM>. The open question is <EM>how much</EM> better it would be. If a real user were to query a Semantic Web database how much better would the query results really be? The answer is unknown because it would all depend on the nature of the query processing infrastructure, the forms of inference and "reasoning" that are implemented,&nbsp;and how the database is structured. All of those aspects are continuing to evolve and as of today none of that infrastructure is in place in a form to perform queries comparable to even a simple Google query. Sure, we <EM>believe</EM> the results would be better, but that's about the strongest statement we can make today.</P> <P>Just this morning I was following <A href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0360.html">a discussion on a Semantic Web email list and David Huynh made the statement</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>It's a case of "<STRONG>good enough is the enemy of vaguely better</STRONG>", unfortunately.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So, yes, we know that queries to the Semantic Web will be better, but our degree of specificity in how much better is clearly vague. In the face of a radically different approach that is completely unproven, it is not uncommon that "good enough" wins by default.</P> <P>Interestingly, Microsoft's new Bing "decision engine" might have to deal with this same issue. Even if their results for many queries are actually "better", the question is whether overall their results are so clearly better that Google's "good enough" will not carry the day. A big unknown, but that is the nature of introducing innovation.</P> <P>I myself often user a similar metaphor for the greater success of Microsoft-based PCs compared to Apple Macs: Maybe the Mac is better, but if the PC is "good enough" what does it matter if the Mac is <EM>somewhat</EM> "better"?</P> <P>The real goal of a true <EM>Knowledge Web </EM>is that <EM>intelligent agents </EM>can do a lot more of our tasks for us. The risk today is that even if we succeeded in building such a knowledge web, the actual and perceived benefits relative to the costs and radical shift in mindset required to use such a web and agents might result in a similarly <EM>vague</EM> relative benefit in comparison with existing "good enough" approaches.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3102145888276408911?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-13565727959579324102009-05-27T17:39:00.000-04:002009-05-27T17:40:21.450-04:00<P>Anybody who has browsed the Web knows that a URL is the web address of a web page on a web site. Meanwhile, the Semantic Web is based on the URI.&nbsp;So, what is a URI, and how are they different? The short answer is that all URLs are by definition URIs and in the context of the Semantic Web the preferred term is URI.</P> <P>Part of the answer is historic: URL (Uniform Resource Locator)&nbsp;is the <EM>original</EM> term for a web address, the location of a web resource or web page on a web site, but technically we <EM>should</EM> be using the newer term URI (Uniform Resource Identifier.)</P> <P>Going further back in history, <A href="http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1630.txt">at one stage URI meant <STRONG>Universal</STRONG> Resource Identifier</A>, but that usage has been <A href="http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt">superceded by <STRONG>Uniform</STRONG> Resource Identifier</A>.</P> <P>There is a little bit more to it. While all URLs are in fact URIs, a subset of URIs are not URLs, in particular, the subset known as URNs or Uniform Resource Names. An example of a URN might the ISBN number for a book such as "URN:ISBN:0-062-51587-X".</P> <P>So:</P> <UL> <LI>A&nbsp;URI is either a URL or a URN. <LI>Every&nbsp;URL&nbsp;is a&nbsp;URI. <LI>Every&nbsp;URN&nbsp;is a&nbsp;URI. <LI>A URN is never a URL. <LI>A&nbsp;URL is never a URN.</LI></UL> <P>For HTML Web pages, it still makes since to refer to the URL of a web page, even though URI is now the technically more precise term, since an HTML Web page URI is in fact always a URL (and vice versa).</P> <P>For RDF statements, the subject, predicate, and objects of an RDF triple are by definition referred to as URIs. They may at times in fact be URLs and refer to resources which are files on Web servers, but that is not required in all cases.</P> <P>If you really want to get technical, there is a discussion in <A href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3305.txt">IETF RFC 3305 entitled "Report from the Joint W3C/IETF URI Planning Interest Group: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs), URLs, and Uniform Resource Names (URNs): Clarifications and Recommendations"</A>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1356572795957932410?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-11387333464003978662009-05-26T11:07:00.000-04:002009-05-26T11:08:08.007-04:00<P><EM>Semantic drift</EM> refers to&nbsp;the change in the meaning of a term or concept over time&nbsp;to the members of a community.</P> <P>Obviously, it would be advantageous if the meaning of a term or concept did not vary over time, but <EM>reality</EM> is a force to be reckoned with.</P> <P>The semantics of a term or concept can change because:</P> <UL> <LI>Changes in the real world, including people, technology, and the physical world,&nbsp;require updating of the meanings of terms and concepts.</LI> <LI>What was considered important may no longer be considered important.</LI> <LI>What was considered unimportant may no longer be considered unimportant.</LI> <LI>New members of the community may have different values and requirements and need or choose to de-emphasize some aspects of the existing meaning and emphasize or add new aspects.</LI> <LI>Existing members of the community may drop out and their influence on the importance of various aspects of the meanings of terms and concepts may wane. Some terms may become more strict, others looser.</LI> <LI>Emergence of new or significantly different <EM>domains</EM> may <EM>borrow</EM> or modify existing semantic meanings of terms.</LI> <LI>Communities can split or splinter and the new sub-communities could diverge in their interests and emphasis on the essential meanings of terms and concepts.</LI> <LI>Communities can merge or overlap so that disjoint collections of terms and concepts will need to be merged and conflicting meanings for the same syntactic terms need to be resolved.</LI> <LI>Bugs or other deficiencies may be discovered and "fixed."</LI></UL> <P>Technically, there are some categories of semantic <EM>mapping</EM> which are not technically semantic <EM>drift</EM>, but may still be informally considered as such:</P> <UL> <LI>Distinct communities may have distinct meanings for superficially identical terms or even concepts. <EM>Bridging</EM> between communities is needed.</LI> <LI>Proprietary communities within a single <EM>industry</EM> or <EM>interest area</EM>&nbsp;may contrive meanings of their own invention for what appear to be superficially identical terms or even concepts. <EM>Standards</EM> are needed.</LI> <LI>Personal and place names, especially in distinct geographic areas.</LI></UL> <P>The whole point is that we need a <EM>semantic infrastructure</EM> which acknowledges and helps us cope with semantic drift and all other forms of semantic mapping.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-1138733346400397866?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-71636881707349511292009-05-25T23:10:00.001-04:002009-05-25T23:10:37.503-04:00<P>Just for future reference, I have reproduced here Tim Berners-Lee's brief statement of his <EM>dream for the Web</EM>, including the Semantic Web and intelligent agents, from his book <A href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006251587X/finaxyz-20"><EM>Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web</EM></A>. He starts out Chapter 12, <EM>Mind to Mind</EM>, by saying:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>I have a dream for the Web... and it has two parts.</EM></P> <P><EM>In the first part, the Web becomes a much more powerful means for collaboration between people. I have always imagined the information space as something to which everyone has immediate and intuitive access, and not just to browse, but to create. The initial WorldWideWeb program opened with an almost blank page, ready for the jottings of the user. Robert Cailliau and I had a great time with it, not because we were looking for a lot of stuff, but because we were writing and sharing our ideas. Furthermore, the dream of people-to-people communication through shared knowledge must be possible for groups of all sizes, interacting electronically with as much ease as they do now in person.</EM></P> <P><EM>In the second part of the dream, collaborations extend to computers. Machines become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web -- the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A "Semantic Web," which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy, and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines, leaving humans to provide the inspiration and intuition. The intelligent "agents" people have touted for ages will finally materialize. This machine-understandable Web will come about through the implementation of a series of technical advances and social agreements that are now beginning (and which I describe in the next chapter).</EM></P> <P><EM>Once the two-part dream is reached, the Web will be a place where the whim of a human being and the reasoning of a machine coexist in an ideal, powerful mixture.</EM></P> <P><EM>Realizing the dreeam will require a lot of nitty-gritty work. The Web is far from "done." It is in only a jumbled state of construction, and no matter how grand the dream, it has to be engineered piece by piece, with many of the pieces far from glamorous.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In short, he&nbsp;envisioned a <EM>Semantic Web</EM> of<EM>&nbsp;machines talking to machines</EM>&nbsp;comprising a <EM>machine-understandable Web</EM>.</P> <P>It is also important to recognize that the Semantic Web is part of the overall Web <EM>dream</EM> and is not intended to be completely separate from <EM>part one</EM> of the Web.</P> <P>Even eight years later, the book is just as relevant to the Web of today, and the future.</P> <P align=center><A href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006251587X/finaxyz-20"><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5188BQ7668L._AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" align=baseline border=0></A></P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7163688170734951129?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-87287799257264309202009-05-25T18:25:00.000-04:002009-05-25T18:27:02.647-04:00<P>One of the big canyons in the Semantic Abyss is how to compare concepts and sense their similarity or differences as well as their relations to other concepts. Sometimes a user can be laser-precise as to what concept is desired, but even then the user may not be aware that other concepts may be quite similar or related in some way. Sometimes it is desirable to treat very similar concepts as virtually identical, while other times it may be desirable merely to offer the user <EM>alternatives</EM> that <EM>might</EM> meet the desired objective. In any case, the starting point is to quantify the <EM>conceptual distance</EM> between concepts. As might be expected, that is likely to be much easier said than done.</P> <P>Much of the existing research relates to determining conceptual distance of document from query terms, also known as <EM>document relevance</EM>. Here, the objective is to compare the terms or concepts themselves to determine how close they are and which are closest.</P> <P>It is not clear if any <EM>absolute conceptual distance</EM> can be determined. Usually, a <EM>relative conceptual distance</EM> for a set of concepts is all that is needed, or maybe all that is possible.</P> <P>Some of the reasons for comparing conceptual distances are to determine:</P> <UL> <LI>similarity</LI> <LI>related</LI> <LI>equivalence</LI> <LI>equality (say, in a social sense)</LI> <LI>same as</LI> <LI>comparable</LI> <LI>synonym</LI></UL> <P>It may be true that any given application or even a given user of an application may have different criteria for how close the conceptual distance must be to satisfy their needs. Control over the looseness or tightness of the <EM>fit</EM> is probably also desirable.</P> <P>A big challenge of the Semantic Web is that different developers and communities have different conceptions of the meanings of concepts. Sometimes seemingly different terms are used to refer to what are logically similar or even identical concepts. This means that we need a sophisticated level of <EM>concept matching</EM> that can transparently handle the bridging of superficial semantic gaps, as well as to alert the user were semantic gaps exist that cannot be automatically bridged but maybe the user can manually accept them as if they were automatically bridged.</P> <P>Another problem is that superficially identical concepts may in fact be quite distinct at a deeper semantic level so that the concept matching should reject them as matches. In the alternative, the user can be alerted to these <EM>false concept matches</EM> and maybe redefine a new set of concepts to effectively bridge the perceived semantic gaps so that matching is more semantically correct.</P> <P>In any case, the ability of the software to give the user excellent feedback on conceptual distance is a very important tool.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8728779925726430920?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-88580710285138901822009-05-14T20:09:00.000-04:002009-05-14T20:10:03.418-04:00<P>I was reading a <A href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0134.html">post by Steffen Staab&nbsp;on the Semantic Web email list</A> and ran across a <A href="http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/2007/aaai07-044.php">link to a&nbsp;paper on <EM>Mereology</EM></A>, which is basically the study of the relations between complete or <EM>integral objects</EM> and the component <EM>parts</EM> that comprise the <EM>whole</EM> object as well as the relations between the parts themselves.</P> <P>The <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology">Wikipedia article on Mereology</A> tells us:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>In philosophy, mereology (from the Greek &#956;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#962; meros part and the ending -logy study, discussion, science) is a collection of axiomatic first-order theories dealing with parts and their respective wholes. In contrast to set theory, which takes the set-member relationship as fundamental, the core notion of mereology is the part-whole relationship. Mereology is both an application of predicate logic and a branch of formal ontology.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The <A href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Mereology</A> tells us:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>Mereology (from the Greek &#956;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#962;, 'part') is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole. Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy, beginning with the Presocratics and continuing throughout the writings of Plato (especially the Parmenides and the Thaetetus), Aristotle (especially the Metaphysics, but also the Physics, the Topics, and De partibus animalium), and Boethius (especially De Divisione and In Ciceronis Topica). Mereology occupies a prominent role also in the writings of medieval ontologists and scholastic philosophers such as Garland the Computist, Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, Walter Burley, and Albert of Saxony, as well as in Jungius's Logica Hamburgensis (1638), Leibniz's Dissertatio de arte combinatoria (1666) and Monadology (1714), and Kant's early writings (the Gedanken of 1747 and the Monadologia physica of 1756). As a formal theory of parthood relations, however, mereology made its way into our times mainly through the work of Franz Brentano and of his pupils, especially Husserl's third Logical Investigation (1901). The latter may rightly be considered the first attempt at a thorough formulation of a theory, though in a format that makes it difficult to disentangle the analysis of mereological concepts from that of other ontologically relevant notions (such as the relation of ontological dependence). It is not until Le&#347;niewski's Foundations of a General Theory of Manifolds (1916, in Polish) that a pure theory of part-relations was given an exact formulation. And because Le&#347;niewski's work was largely inaccessible to non-speakers of Polish, it is only with the publication of Leonard and Goodman's The Calculus of Individuals (1940) that mereology has become a chapter of central interest for modern ontologists and metaphysicians.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is quite heavy-duty stuff, but does show the increasing trend for the intersection of computer science and philosophy especially as we get deeper into the Semantic Web.</P> <P>The original link pointed to the <A href="http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/2007/aaai07-044.php">abstract for a paper entitled <EM>A Temporal Mereology for Distinguishing between Integral Objects and Portions of Stuff</EM> by Thomas Bittner and&nbsp;Maureen Donnelly</A>. It discusses three categories of "stuff":</P> <UL> <LI><EM>Integral objects</EM>, such as a car or computer.</LI> <LI><EM>Structured stuff</EM>, such as blood or the tissue of an organ.</LI> <LI><EM>Unstructured stuff</EM>, such as air and water that is <EM>homogenous</EM>.</LI></UL> <P>They give the example of the distinction between the liver as an integral object and liver tissue as the structured stuff the comprises the liver. The two are obviously related, but need to be treated distinctly depending on your intentions and purposes.</P> <P>In the case of blood, we can refer to human blood in general, the blood of a particular human, a sample or <EM>portion</EM> of the blood of that particular human, and the "structured stuff" within that portion as it might be processed and separated into the components of red and white cells, platelets, and plasma.</P> <P>This post is primarily intended as more of a bookmark for later reference, so my apologies for not giving a more concise or more detailed account of mereology.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8858071028513890182?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-87441014162941249912009-05-10T20:34:00.000-04:002009-05-10T20:35:24.976-04:00<P>I ran across an interesting&nbsp;<A href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0100.html">statement in a post&nbsp;on the W3C Semantic Web email list</A>&nbsp;by <A href="http://topquadrant.com/company/mgmt.html">Jeremy J. Carroll, Chief Product Architect of TopQuadrant</A>&nbsp;in reply to a <A href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0095.html">post from John Sowa</A>, that relates to <EM>truth</EM> in the context of the Semantic Web:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>... truth should not be hard-coded but somehow emergent.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I would add that there may be many competing <EM>truths</EM> on any given issue and that the user will have to choose between competing <EM>value systems</EM> that each arrived at their own versions of the <EM>truth of an issue</EM>.</P> <P>Each user may&nbsp;have their own preferred <EM>authorities</EM> and <EM>sources</EM> from which they may choose to select the appropriate value system.</P> <P>All of this may evolve over time. Authorities and sources can change their minds. Underlying data can change. Calculations can change. Rules can change. Theories can change. Experiments can be re-evaluated or examined in a new light.&nbsp;The world can change.&nbsp;Authorities and sources can come and go and their&nbsp;influence can wax and wane.&nbsp;User preferences can change.</P> <P>So, you cannot <EM>capture</EM> truth at a moment and hold it forever. You need to <EM>re-execute</EM> your query to determine the truth of some assertion at the time you need it. Of course, even the Semantic Web cannot give you the <EM>real truth</EM>, but merely the <EM>modeled truth</EM>, as it emerges and as it continues to evolve, even over time, with <EM>time</EM> being a <EM>variable</EM> required for determining the truth of a proposition.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8744101416294124991?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-9328768364486007162009-04-30T19:49:00.002-04:002009-04-30T20:00:07.517-04:00<p>Current Semantic Web technologies are difficult to utilize, even by highly-skilled professionals. Unlike basic HTML where interesting Web pages and blogs can be assembled and hyperlinked with very little effort and grow at a "viral" rate, the growth of the Semantic Web is proceeding at a snail's pace. A high level of sophistication is needed to develop even basic Semantic Web content. It should not be that way. What is needed is a <em>Casual Semantic Web</em> where even naive consumers and low-skilled workers can rapidly put together interesting Semantic Web content.</p> <p>Existing Semantic Web technologies are extremely flexible and enable very complex information structures, but consumers and low-skilled workers do not need all or even any of that complexity. They need simple constructs.</p> <p>They need little more than "elements" for concepts such as:</p> <ul dir="ltr"> <li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Names</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Places</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Addresses</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Phone numbers</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Email addresses</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">IM ids</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Social networking ids</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Dates</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Ages</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Activities</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Interests</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Preferences</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Opinions</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Polls</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Rankings</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Ratings</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Friends</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Colleagues</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Businesses</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Governmental agencies</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Non-profit institutions</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Hospitals</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Doctors</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Employers</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Employees</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Teams</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Team members</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Groups</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Associations</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Membership</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Travel plans</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Children</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Parents</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Relatives</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Roles</div> </li><li> <div style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Lists</div></li></ul> <p>Of course they need convenient methods to publish their <em>personal Semantic Web</em>.</p> <p>They need convenient <em>Semantic Web browsing</em> tools, although that capability may simply fold right into the traditional Web browser.</p> <p>Traditional search engine and blog "crawling" technology would be sufficient to aggregate data to enable queries to correlate between users, groups, organizations, interests, etc. There would also be plenty of opportunity for specialized aggregators or mirroring or caching services to evolve, but none would have a monopoly or be able to act as gatekeepers to innovation since the underlying data would always be freely available to all.</p><p>Client apps (including for the iPhone and other mobile devices) could provide the kind of user-friendly access UI that people have come to expect from current social networks, but the "open" nature of the "networks" would provide greater flexibility and opportunity for innovation.</p> <p>Users also need <em>access control </em>for privacy.</p> <p>They also need a mechanism to <em>manage their identity</em>.</p> <p>Elsewhere I have suggested the utility of a <a href="http://semanticabyss.blogspot.com/2009/04/using-data-unions-as-repositories-of.html"><em>Data Union</em> for storage of personal data</a>.</p> <p>The <em>Casual Semantic Web</em> would in fact be a step in the direction of <em><a href="http://semanticabyss.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-garden-social-networking-vs-walled.html">open garden social networking</a></em> in which the users are in control rather than being under the thumb of the "keepers" of current <em>walled-garden social networks</em>.</p> <p>Users would be capable of introducing innovative social networks rather than dependent on others to provide (and control) them.</p> <p>Overall, the main starting point is an extremely <em>user-friendly</em> vocabulary that does not require a computer science degree or advanced training just to publish relatively basic information.</p> <p>-- <a href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-932876836448600716?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-52921068447198680712009-04-30T13:00:00.001-04:002009-04-30T13:00:49.176-04:00<P>Swamps are interesting places, but not if you are looking to make rapid progress. They are an unfortunate hybrid between dry land and open water. A land vehicle will get mired in the muck. Ditto with a water vehicle. Sure, there may be patches of dry earth here and there or pools of water here and there, but not enough of either in a connected fashion to exploit either. This is how a lot of the current Semantic Web feels to me. There is simply too much technological "muck" that slows progress.</P> <P>Just yesterday (and into today) I was following an email thread on the OWL list about the relatively simple concepts of subclass and superclass, but the discussion simply goes on and on because there is no clarity in the specifications. Maybe if somebody points you to the precisely right passage it will all become clear (or maybe not), but that should not be required.</P> <P>Sure, there are books and tutorials and seminars and consultants, but <EM>none</EM> of that should be required, at least for the level that the technology is at today.</P> <P>It is an open question whether <EM>tools </EM>or additional <EM>layers</EM> can be built on top of the current Semantic Web technologies that are sufficient to hide the "muck" of the "swamp." I am hopeful that is the case, but there are no guarantees.</P> <P>Can we "flood" the swamp to turn it into a navigable lake or sea? Maybe.</P> <P>Can we "fill" in the swamp to create solid, traversable dry land with&nbsp;the underlying swamp as an&nbsp;"aquifer"? Maybe.</P> <P>Besides the concerns about usability of current Semantic Web technologies, there is the larger question of whether it is so complex even at this stage that even seasoned professionals may be unable to <EM>verify</EM> that Semantic Web constructions are <EM>technically correct</EM> and <EM>valid</EM> for their intended applications and not too <EM>fragile</EM> and are readily <EM>maintainable</EM> by other than their original developers.&nbsp;Five or ten years from now could we end up with a <EM>knowledge crisis</EM> analogous to the current banking crisis simply because we do not know the location or magnitude of <EM>risks</EM>?</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-5292106844719868071?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-39315507439018547822009-04-29T19:45:00.000-04:002009-04-29T19:47:25.451-04:00<P>Check out Stephen Wolfram's thoughts on "<A href="http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2009/04/29/the-quest-for-computable-knowledge-a-longer-view">The Quest for Computable Knowledge</A>" on the new <A href="http://blog.wolframalpha.com">Wolfram|Alpha blog</A>. He acknowledges Leibniz's role in collection of knowledge, reasoning,&nbsp;and computation:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>I've always been particularly struck by Gottfried Leibniz's role. He really had pretty much the whole idea of Wolfram|Alpha--300 years ago.</EM></P> <P><EM>At the end of the 1600s he came to believe that somehow there must be a way to mechanize the resolution of all human arguments.</EM></P> <P><EM>He imagined that one could represent human discourse using logic and mathematics. Then he imagined that one could use a machine to work out answers from this--and in fact he even built some small mechanical calculators himself.</EM></P> <P><EM>He also realized that to provide raw material for his mechanization it would be necessary to assemble lots of knowledge. So he worked hard to get libraries constructed, and to invent systems for organizing them.</EM></P> <P><EM>Of course there were some elements missing. But Leibniz really had the right basic idea.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-3931550743901854782?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-43973149395265265822009-04-28T17:29:00.001-04:002009-04-28T17:29:59.198-04:00<P>Although I am still not convinced that the current Semantic Web technologies, based on RDF, are in fact the optimal foundation for a true knowledge web, I will continue to proceed on the assumption that RDF is in fact a reasonable starting point. That said, there is a real question of what exactly we can model in RDF. Maybe, in theory, we can model anything and everything in RDF, but is it really an efficient and effective "language" for the higher-levels of knowledge? Even if it "works", in theory, is it really practical?</P> <P>In computer programming languages we have "levels" of language:</P> <OL> <LI>Machine code. The actual bits for the "instructions"&nbsp;executed by the hardware (or interpreter.)</LI> <LI>Assembly language. Mnemonic opcodes, symbolic names, macros, and other convenient features, but there is still a one-to-one relationship with machine code instructions.</LI> <LI>High-level languages. A compiler or interpreter translates declarations, expressions, "statements", functions, and classes into machine language instructions. These tend to be "procedural" languages.</LI> <LI>"4GL". User-oriented "query" languages that allow the user to interact in terms closer to the real world. These tend to be "declarative" languages -- the user says "here is what I want" and the computer figures out how to do it. Maybe even a little natural language or a structured subset.</LI> <LI>"5GL". Use of artificial intelligence, such as&nbsp;to infer what the user really wants. Deeper and broader support for natural language.</LI></OL> <P>It may in fact be rather dangerous and counterproductive to assert that a knowledge web can be built and used based on such a hierarchy of languages, but for now it at least seems to be a reasonable conjecture to contemplate, at least until there is some clear and convincing evidence that it is a bad idea.</P> <P>Using this <EM>programming language level model</EM>, RDF seems to "fit" as the assembly language level for knowledge. Names, in the form of name spaces and URIs, may be rather cryptic, but they are certainly symbolic, at least to some degree. Triples have a nice, fixed format, with three "fields" (object, predicate, subject), much as machine/assembly language "instructions."</P> <P>Most significantly, an <EM>assembly language</EM> is a great tool for advanced, leading edge professionals, but an exceedingly poor tool for "users" such as subject matter experts who know their domain but not necessarily the nuances of the Semantic Web technologies such as RDF.</P> <P>Clearly there is a need for <EM>higher-level knowledge languages</EM>. I do not have any detailed answers here and now, but this is obviously an area to think about.</P> <P>I would close here by noting that we should be careful not to confuse languages and tools. Graphic interactive tools and environments will certainly be as useful in working with knowledge webs as they are in traditional computer programming, but it is still important to be clear about what level of language is being modeled directly behind the fancy graphical images. Putting a&nbsp;pretty GUI frontend on an RDF editor does not magically give the user the ability to converse in a 4GL. In short, a GUI frontend will be appropriate for each <EM>level of knowledge language</EM>, and the GUI may be radically different for different language levels.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4397314939526526582?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-84333927878426775282009-04-21T17:52:00.000-04:002009-04-21T17:53:01.192-04:00<P>A lot of talk about knowledge, but what exactly is the <EM>unit</EM> of knowledge?</P> <P>Computers have bits, bytes, words, integers, floating point, and strings, but how do we even talk about the <EM>units of knowledge</EM>?</P> <P>Before continuing, I would note one interesting answer that I stumbled upon using Google. According to <A href="http://www.timebackmanagement.com/blog/the_basic_unit_of_knowledge_is_a_question">Dan Markovitz of TimeBack Management</A>, a common saying around Toyota is that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The basic unit of knowledge is a question.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That may have some utility, but begs the question is to what the <EM>unit of questions</EM> might be, leaving us with not much more than we started.</P> <P>A variation of that adage might be an axiom about units of knowledge:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The basic unit of knowledge is the most narrow and focused question that we can formulate about knowledge.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>A corollary of that axiom would be:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The basic unit of knowledge is the response to&nbsp;the most narrow and focused question that we can formulate about knowledge.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But, I am not so sure that such an axiom must necessarily be true. A question is like a tool, a measuring and manipulation device, used to access knowledge. But in the real world it <EM>seems</EM> as if matter has an even finer structure than the finest tools we can construct for measuring and manipulating matter. On the other hand, maybe that merely means that we simply are not yet smart enough to envision such tools. In some cases, such as with subatomic particles, we use <EM>indirect</EM> tools such as particle accelerators to smash particles apart so we can <EM>observe</EM> the results. So, maybe my axiom is not so far off, for now.</P> <P><A href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_smallest_unit_of_knowledge">WikiAnswers.com has an interesting answer</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>Q: What is the smallest unit of knowledge?</EM></P> <P><EM>A: The adjective. </EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That is along the lines of a thought I had, that <EM>attributes</EM> of objects may be the smallest units of knowledge.</P> <P>I mostly think of knowledge as <EM>collections of statements about objects, phenomena, or beliefs</EM>.</P> <P>We could say that the <EM>statement</EM> is the "unit" of knowledge, but to me a statement is more a <EM>form</EM> of knowledge, a container rather than the contents of the container. We are more interested in the units of the contents of statement "containers."</P> <P>Operationally, <EM>nouns</EM>, <EM>pronouns</EM>, <EM>adjectives</EM>, <EM>verbs</EM>, <EM>adverbs</EM>, <EM>prepositions</EM>, <EM>interjections</EM>, and <EM>conjunctions</EM>&nbsp;(the eight parts of speech) are the basic natural language units for knowledge. Or you could say that <EM>words</EM> are the units of natural language knowledge. This is certainly true, but seems to sidestep the issue of true "knowledge" in the sense that an assembly of words can suddenly conjure up a meaning that quite distinct from the meanings of the individual words.</P> <P>A dictionary might contain all of the words used in a novel, but the real question is what is the unit of <EM>storytelling</EM> that makes a novel what it is rather than just a sequence of statements.</P> <P>An operational definition from the world of the Semantic Web is the <EM>RDF statement</EM> or <EM>RDF triple</EM> which consists of a <EM>subject</EM>, <EM>predicate</EM> (or <EM>property</EM>), and <EM>object</EM>. An <EM>RDF&nbsp;statement</EM>&nbsp;can be somewhat&nbsp;analogous to an adjective. At least in the context of the Semantic Web, RDF triples are clearly the unit of "knowledge." But, that begs the question of whether the Semantic Web as currently envisioned is comprehensive enough to represent all knowledge.</P> <P>For now, I am comfortable using the <EM>statement</EM> as the unit of basic knowledge. For example:</P> <UL> <LI>The apple is red.</LI> <LI>Some apples are red.</LI> <LI>Not all apples are red.</LI> <LI>The apple is on the table.</LI> <LI>There is no apple on the table.</LI></UL> <P>Next, there are various forms of statements:</P> <UL> <LI>Existence. The fact that some object, phenomenon, or belief&nbsp;does or does not exist.</LI> <LI>Attributes. Such as the color or location or size of an object.</LI> <LI>Relationships to other objects (or phenomena or beliefs). How do the objects in the world interact.</LI></UL> <P>We can also refer to such simple statements as <EM>facts</EM>. There is some appeal to suggesting that <EM>facts</EM> are the <EM>units of knowledge</EM>. Whether facts and statements are the same or dissimilar in some way is left for further consideration in the future.</P> <P>An immediate question is the status of <EM>questions</EM> relative to statements. My current thesis is that questions are simply another form of statement, a kind of <EM>mirror</EM> reflection of statements:</P> <UL> <LI>Is the apple red?</LI> <LI>Are all apples red?</LI> <LI>Is there an apple on the table?</LI> <LI>Where is the apple?</LI></UL> <P>We could presume that the form of the answer or response to any question is the unit of knowledge.</P> <P>Next, there is the issue of <EM>compositional structuring of statements</EM>, collections of statements that are <EM>related</EM> somehow. This is where things get, literally, <EM>interesting</EM>, since such collections of statements may in fact be the unit for <EM>storytelling</EM>, for constructing elaborate stories, including novels. These collections of statements may in fact represent a <EM>unit of meaning</EM> that is in fact far richer than the level of simple, factual statements. So, we have this issue of whether <EM>facts</EM> or story-level <EM>meaning</EM> should be our unit of knowledge.</P> <P>Google has <A href="http://knol.google.com/">a project called <EM>knol</EM></A> which is billed as "<EM>a unit of knowledge</EM>". A knol is in fact a full-blown paper or essay or article, comparable to a Wikipedia article. That is a rather different usage of the term "unit." One could propose that a "unit" of knowledge is an interesting and usable <EM>package</EM> of knowledge, including books, web pages, PDF documents, magazines, movies, podcasts, blogs, blog posts, Twitter "tweets", etc. Fair enough.</P> <P>Maybe my final thought, for now,&nbsp;is that a unit of knowledge is <EM>any form</EM> of knowledge that is <EM>usable, as is</EM>. Even a passage of text clipped out of the middle of a paragraph might be a <EM>usable unit of knowledge</EM>.</P> <P>I have not answered the initial question precisely, but I think there is enough foundation to proceed without having a precise definition, for now.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8433392787842677528?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-2998073020354388712009-04-21T10:49:00.001-04:002009-04-21T10:49:43.854-04:00<P>One day we will have a sufficiently rich and robust infrastructure capable of supporting the development of a true <EM>knowledge web</EM>, but will we be ready for it? Even with the proper tools in our hands, will we know how to use them effectively?</P> <P>What is needed is some sense of how to <EM>cultivate knowledge</EM> so that we do not end up with vast mountain ranges of <EM>crap</EM> that suffer from GIGO (<EM>garbage in, garbage out</EM>.)</P> <P>At a simplistic level we need tools, methods, and discipline for <EM>knowledge curation</EM>, but that is much easier said than done.</P> <P>Further, we need a <EM>culture of knowledge</EM> that is compatible with and accepted by <EM>average consumers</EM> so that we can in fact build a vast <EM><A href="http://agtivity.com/vision_of_consumer_applications_of_software_agent_technology.htm">consumer-centric knowledge web</A></EM> that does not depend on vast legions of <EM>human knowledge curators</EM> just to accumulate relatively simple tidbits of knowledge that consumers produce on a daily basis.</P> <P>In short, we need a whole science of <EM>consumer-centric knowledge cultivation</EM>. Otherwise, we could end up producing a knowledge web that is not terribly useful relative to its promise.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-299807302035438871?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-27078343313375531742009-04-20T18:26:00.000-04:002009-04-20T18:27:10.624-04:00<P>With so many places to go and so many things to see and do on the Web, it is getting almost impossible to keep up with the proliferation of interesting information out there. We need some help.&nbsp;A hefty productivity boost is simply not good enough. We need a lot of help. Browser add-ons, better search engines,&nbsp;and filtering tools are simply not enough. Unfortunately, the next few years holds more of the same.</P> <P>But, longer term we should finally start to see credible advances in <EM>software agent technology</EM> which help to extend our own minds so that we can engage in <EM>virtual browsing</EM> and have a <EM>virtual presence</EM> on the Web so that we can effectively reach and touch a far broader, deeper, and richer lode of information than we can with personal browsing and our personal presence.</P> <P>Twitter asks us what we are doing right now, but our online activity and presence with the aid of software agents&nbsp;will be a thousand or ten thousand or even a million or ten million times greater than we can personally achieve today. What&nbsp;are each of us interested in? How about <EM>everything</EM>?! Why not?</P> <P>The gradual evolution of the W3C conception of the <EM>Semantic Web</EM> will eventually reach a critical mass where even relatively dumb software agents can finally appear to behave in a relatively intelligent manner that begins to approximate our own personal activity and personal presence on the Web.</P> <P>It may take another five to ten years, but the long march in that direction is well underway.</P> <P>The biggest obstacle right now is not the intelligence of an individual software agent per se, but the need to encode a rich enough density of information in the Semantic Web so that we can realistically develop intelligent software agents that can work with that data. We will also need an infrastructure that mediates between the actual data and the agents.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2707834331337553174?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-28997728926022300942009-04-13T11:30:00.000-04:002009-04-13T11:31:16.127-04:00<P>In order to facilitate the development of <EM>open garden social networks</EM> it is necessary to have a safe place for consumers to place their personal data, not just where it can be stored and accessed, but also to control access and to provide a reliable digital identity. Many years ago I thought up a scheme I called a <EM><A href="http://opixia.com/BaseTechnology/data_union.htm">data union</A></EM>, kind of a cross between a data bank and a credit union, which would provide exactly that form of reliable and safe storage for a consumer's personal data. I finally wrote up a <A href="http://opixia.com/BaseTechnology/data_union.htm">rough, summary description back in 2005</A>, but I have not yet pursued the concept any further.</P> <P>The intention is not so much to store a consumer's <EM>bulk</EM> data such as documents, photos, media, etc., but simply to store and control the <EM>attribute</EM> information that might be needed for online transactions and promotion of products and services, such as name, address, phone numbers, social security number, age and birth date, gender, interests, and whatever. The intention was to give the consumer great control over exactly what personal information is available to whomever.</P> <P>It would be a natural extension to have a <EM>data union safety deposit box</EM>, which would be a modest amount of digital storage, maybe in the megabytes or a "few" gigabytes, sufficient for documents, valuable images, etc., but not intended for full-blown personal storage.</P> <P>A&nbsp;data union would be an ideal repository for online digital identity credentials, or at least as a digital identity validation service. For example, the consumer could approve an entity with which they are willing to transact and then the consumer could provide a transaction code to that entity which the data union could verify.</P> <P>A data union would enable the consumer to be as open and visible and transparent&nbsp;or as closed and hidden and secretive as they wish.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2899772892602230094?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-76475442578153270302009-04-12T20:31:00.000-04:002009-04-12T20:32:55.890-04:00<P>I am truly tired of social networking sites that are <EM>walled gardens</EM>, requiring some form of <EM>registration</EM> and holding my personal data <EM>hostage</EM> by maintaining it behind the walls of the "walled garden." What is the alternative? Is there an alternative? No, there is no alternative currently, but in the longer term we can hope that developers and entrepreneurs will recognize that <EM>open garden networks</EM> have distinct advantages over walled gardens.</P> <P>The esence of an <EM>open garden social network</EM> is that users maintain their data wherever they want as long as it can be crawled by whatever sites wish to aggregate that data. Since the data is maintained publicly, it can easily be shared by more than one <EM>social networking aggregator</EM>.</P> <P>The immediate technical obstacles are that: 1)&nbsp;the average consumer has no obvious public location to store their data and 2) we do not have a technology and public infrastructure in place for consumers to "sign" their personal data to associate it with their digital identity.</P> <P>Who knows, maybe <EM>open garden social networking</EM> will take off in another five or ten years.</P> <P>One of the key benefits of <EM>open garden personal data</EM> is that it will open up vast new opportunities for innovation in <EM>open garden social media</EM> since each innovator can piggyback on the existing (in the future)&nbsp;public <EM>open garden infrastructure</EM> rather than need to go through the time and expense of reinventing the wheel unnecessarily for each new social networking aggregator site.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7647544257815327030?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-26755800780728420202009-04-06T17:06:00.000-04:002009-04-06T17:07:01.854-04:00<P>As yet there are no perfect methods for consumers to enter semantic data. Entering free text is certainly convenient, but we just don't have "perfect" natural language processing software, yet.</P> <P>The common forms of consumer data for which semantic data are desirable include:</P> <UL> <LI>email messages</LI> <LI>email address books</LI> <LI>blog posts</LI> <LI>Twitter "tweets" and other forms of micro-blogging</LI> <LI>IM instant messages</LI> <LI>cell phone calls</LI> <LI>text messages</LI> <LI>digital camera pictures</LI> <LI>transaction data, including credit card transactions and online ecommerce forms.</LI></UL> <P>Unless the consumer is an "English geek", it is unlikely that they will be willing to create structured sentence diagrams to express the meaning of even simple statements.</P> <P>The full range of methods for semantic input include:</P> <OL> <LI>Natural language processing (NLP) for text and audio. <LI>Controlled vocabularies (e.g., Structured English) <LI>Text mining. <LI>Full semantic map editing (e.g., ala sentence diagrams) <LI>Detection of object references in free text (e.g., proper names and&nbsp;nick names for people, places, and things), possibly based on customizable dictionaries. <LI>Form-based input, including drop-down lists for direct selection of semantics <LI>Transaction device data (e.g., GPS location, date and time, etc.) <LI>Transaction information (e.g., online ecommerce data) <LI>Tagging <LI>Background review and re-entry by trained "semantic coder" (e.g., in an "offshore" market.) <LI>Feedback and enhance - mine consumer input for apparent concepts and ambiguity, annotate the original, and allow consumer to approve and select between alternatives and "hints"</LI></OL> <P>I am sure that there are a variety of other methods, existing, proposed, or not yet imagined, but these are a starting point for discussion, as well as an illustration of how much more research and innovation are needed.</P> <P>I have been trying to avoid a reliance on full-bore NLP, but the simple truth is that it may in fact be the best foundation.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2675580078072842020?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-63280394430968569552009-04-06T08:55:00.001-04:002009-04-06T08:55:43.262-04:00<P>I have never been happy with the Semantic Web concept of associating resources with specific Web locations using URLs that specify a server location such as a domain name. The main issues:</P> <OL> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Makes it difficult to move a resource to another domain.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Increases the likelihood that a server might become a performance bottleneck, especially as popularity grows and the Semantic Web begins to scale up in size dramatically (so-called "exponential growth.") Wiring in a server location simply does not scale up.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Encourages ad-hoc caching. Worse, as the Semantic Web scales up it <EM>requires</EM> a dependence on ad-hoc caching.</DIV></LI></OL> <P>Although some form of caching is clearly part of the solution, the main component of a solution is to switch from URL-based resource locating to URI-based resource locating.</P> <P>Rather than specifying a single URL and then depending on the existing, non-Semantic Web <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system">Domain Name System&nbsp;(DNS)</A> to look up the actual path to "the" server, we need a non-DNS lookup mechanism that takes one or more URIs and does more of a "keyword" lookup (treating each URI as a "keyword" (actually a Semantic Web analog to a keyword)) and then redirects through a caching inrastructure that is <EM>designed</EM> to meet the needs of caching resources for the Semantic Web.</P> <P>A Semantic Web resource URI list might also be supplemented with various attributes, such as version number or version requirements and other attributes needed to constrain and control resource access.</P> <P>The SW resource infrastructure should be able to manage multiple versions for a resource and efficient and controlled&nbsp;propagation of changes.</P> <P>One use of multiple URIs is to control the degree of specialization of a generic resource name. A single URI would be the most general resource reference and provide the most adapaptability, while adding on specialization URIs would provide access to resources that meet additional requirements. This is analogous to base and derived classes in object-oriented programming, but is not necessarily required.</P> <P>One key attribute of such a resource infrastructure, besides scalable performance itself, would be that even a very small, under-powered web site could be the source host for even extremely popular Semantic Web resources, and migrating such resources to another host should be completely transparent to the "users" (user agents, UAs, or software agents) that have the URI list for the resource "wired" into their "code."</P> <P>Alas, I am not optimistic that such an aechitecture will soon or even ever by made available for the Semantic Web as we know it today. The change may have to wait for whatever follows the Semantic Web, or maybe even for <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity">Ray Kurzweil's Singularity</A>.</P> <P>Still, it is useful to contemplate what a proper solution might look like.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6328039443096856955?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-48511345824014796612009-04-06T07:42:00.001-04:002009-04-06T07:42:57.511-04:00<P>A key issue with building a semantic web is having robust base reference data, including geopolitical data such as the countries of the world. The <A href="http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo.asp">Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has produced an ontology for geopolitical information</A> that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>... manages information about territories and groups, such as, the different names in English, French, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic; associated classification codes, like, UN code&nbsp;-- M49, ISO-3166 Alpha-2 and Alpha-3, UNDP code, GAUL code, FAOSTAT, etc; historical changes; and specific relations like "x has border with y" and "x is member of group z".</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That sounds like a great start, although I have not examined the details.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4851134582401479661?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-74721620731976424862009-03-09T13:21:00.000-04:002009-03-09T13:22:26.995-04:00<P>The compound term <EM>curated data</EM> merely means data (in&nbsp;a loose sense, that may include&nbsp;even the most sophisticated&nbsp;computational formats for structured information, media, and even knowledge)&nbsp;that has been collected and organized under the supervision of one or more persons considered to be qualified to engage in such an activity. Such a person may in fact be a scientist or other expert in a relevant field, or may merely be someone acting in a clerical capacity who simply verifies that the data is "acceptable" according to the requirements of whoever has commissioned the curation of the data. The implication is that the resulting database (or data series or data set) is of high quality. The contrast is with data which may have been gathered through some automated process or using particularly low or unskilled workers&nbsp;such that the quality of the data is unverified and possibly unreliable.</P> <P>An example of curated data is the extensive <A href="http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/NewIn70ComputableData.html"><EM>computable data</EM> supplied&nbsp;with Mathematica from Wolfram Research</A>.</P> <P dir=ltr>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7472162073197642486?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-81388967768258394402009-03-08T20:33:00.000-04:002009-03-08T20:34:16.064-04:00<P>The <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW">DIKW hierarchy</A> is a rough model for relating data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Granted, the model lacks scientific precision and may not have a lot of functional utility, among numerous criticisms, but I personally find that it helps to clarify what level of refinement and robustness we are dealing with.</P> <P>There is implicitly a lower-level below the DIKW&nbsp;hierarchy, the <EM>signal</EM> level where we have raw sensor readings before they are formatted into <EM>data</EM>.</P> <P><EM>Data</EM> (or a <EM>data item</EM>)&nbsp;has little meaning directly attached to it. We have primitive data types such as integers, floating point numbers, character strings, boolean flags, etc., and we have streams of data. We speak of <EM>data values</EM> or the <EM>value</EM> of a data item.</P> <P><EM>Information</EM>&nbsp;takes data and applies&nbsp;structure and rudimentary meaning. We have records, structures, database tables, and other methods and mechanisms for organizing raw data items into somewhat <EM>abstract structures</EM>. These structures may be coupled with <EM>methods </EM>for manipulating the information&nbsp;and <EM>rules </EM>that constrain the information and structures or define <EM>relationships </EM>among subsets of the information.&nbsp;This is the meat and potatoes of computation as we know it today.</P> <P><EM>Knowledge</EM> moves towards representation of <EM>meaning</EM> that may begin to approximate human knowledge. Knowledge has a <EM>meaning structure</EM> but may or may not be based on information structures as well. We may also approximate knowledge using <EM>semi-structured information</EM>.</P> <P><EM>Wisdom</EM> corresponds to judgment in the application of knowledge, but is not yet readily achievable in a typical computational environment.</P> <P>This DIKW model is surely very limited and may not ultimately give us a lot of intellectual leverage, but it is a decent starting point.</P> <P>I see the current Semantic Web as mostly focused at the information level, trying to give us computational power at the Web level that we currently have within individual computers and individual applications.</P> <P>The hope is that once we have mastered information at the Web level, maybe then we can layer knowledge on top of that. And then maybe wisdom can be laid on top of that. Or so the <EM>fantasy</EM> goes.</P> <P dir=ltr>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-8138896776825839440?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-20107290738696092282009-03-08T18:34:00.001-04:002009-03-08T18:34:56.225-04:00<P><A href="http://blog.wolfram.com/2009/03/05/wolframalpha-is-coming/">Wolfram Research (Stephen Wolfram) is on the verge of unveiling a new project called "Alpha"</A> which is billed as a "<EM>computational knowledge engine</EM>." It combines the computational power of Mathematica with tools to "<EM>explicitly curate all data so that it is immediately computable</EM>" to be able to "<EM>take questions people ask in natural language, and represent them in a precise form that fits into the computations one can do</EM>" and "<EM>handle all the shorthand notations that people in every possible field use</EM>." Wolfram says:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>... I'm happy to say that with a mixture of many clever algorithms and heuristics, lots of linguistic discovery and linguistic curation, and what probably amount to some serious theoretical breakthroughs, we're actually managing to make it work.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>He does add the caveat that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P dir=ltr><EM>And -- like Mathematica, or NKS -- the project will never be finished.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>But he triumphantly announces that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P dir=ltr><EM>... I'm happy to say that we've almost reached the point where we feel we can expose the first part of it.</EM></P> <P dir=ltr><EM>It's going to be a website: </EM><A href="http://www.wolframalpha.com"><EM>www.wolframalpha.com</EM></A><EM>. With one simple input field that gives access to a huge system, with trillions of pieces of curated data and millions of lines of algorithms.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>Having a simple Google-like search engine box is all well and good, but the real question is the extent to which the engine is "open", both in terms of programmatic API and Web Services access and integrating with external data.</P> <P dir=ltr>How it compares with and meshes with the Semantic Web remains to be seen.</P> <P dir=ltr>In any case, this does sound like a significant leap forward</P> <P dir=ltr>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-2010729073869609228?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-66346878726034476832009-03-05T18:14:00.001-05:002009-03-05T18:14:31.775-05:00<P>This is mostly just a note to myself to look into <A href="http://knoodl.com">Knoodl</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>Knoodl facilitates community-oriented development of OWL based ontologies and RDF knowledgebases. It also serves as a semantic technology platform, offering a service based interface so that communities can build their own semantic applications using their ontologies and knowledgebases. Knoodl is a product of Revelytix, Inc. and is hosted in the Amazon EC2 cloud and is available for free.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>According to their web site, Knoodl offers:</P> <UL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV><EM>Cloud-based application (Amazon EC2)</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Ontology editing</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Ontology import/export</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Collaboration</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Role-based security</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Scalable RDF store (Mulgara)</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>NEW SPARQL Endpoints NEW</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>SPARQL query wizard (March '09)</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Ontology guided search (March '09)</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>Graphical ontology mapping wizard (March '09)</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>User designed widgets and gadgets for viewing data (March '09)</EM></DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV><EM>User designed widgets and gadgets for entering data and submitting queries (March '09)</EM></DIV></LI></UL> <P dir=ltr>They tell us that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>All content in Knoodl is organized into </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=˜groups/Knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Community href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Community"><EM>Communities</EM></A><EM>. You can browse the list of Communities by clicking on the Community menu at the top of the screen and selecting Directory. Within Communities, there are regular </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=˜groups/Knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Wiki href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Wiki"><EM>Wikis</EM></A><EM> and there are </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=˜groups/Knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Vocabulary href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Vocabulary"><EM>Vocabularies</EM></A><EM>. A Vocabulary is a combination of an OWL based ontology editor and a wiki. </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=˜groups/Knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Wikitext href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Glossary/entry/Wikitext"><EM>Wikitext</EM></A><EM> in Knoodl is not semantic, it is there to provide users with the ability to collaborate more effectively and add rich documentation. Each Vocabulary represents an ontology. Every resource (class, property, and instance) in the ontology has its own page in the Vocabulary.</EM></P> <P><EM>To get started, you can </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=˜/wiki/Tour href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Tour"><EM>take the tour</EM></A><EM> and see </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title="˜/wiki/Help/entry/Getting Started" href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Help/entry/Getting_Started"><EM>how to get started</EM></A><EM>, then dive in and check out some of the </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=˜/wiki/Help/entry/Examples href="http://knoodl.com/ui/groups/knoodl/wiki/Help/entry/Examples"><EM>example vocabularies</EM></A><EM>, and see what vocabularies people have already uploaded. Better yet, </EM><A class=wikiWikiLink title=/ui/account/register href="http://knoodl.com/ui/account/register" rel=nofollow><EM>register for an account</EM></A><EM>, create or join a community, and start contributing!</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P dir=ltr>Sounds quite interesting.</P> <P dir=ltr>One question I have: Is the "k" in "Knoodl"enunciated or is it more like the silent&nbsp;"k" in "knowledge"? I am guessing that it is pronounced "noodle" rather than "ka-noodle", but who knows.</P> <P dir=ltr>Hmmm... I wonder if any of ontologies for vocabularies include pronunciations?! Anybody have an ontology for natural language speech, the spoken word?</P> <P dir=ltr>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-6634687872603447683?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-5105853929486013712009-02-16T11:00:00.000-05:002009-02-16T11:01:43.011-05:00<P>Terms and concepts tend to be used rather loosely when a new field of interest is fairly young or poorly understood. That is to be expected. But as people drill down into more detailed examination of concepts they tend to <EM>refine</EM> terms. Similarly, as they find commonality and pursue application of concepts they <EM>expand</EM> the range of terms.</P> <P><EM>Refinement</EM> tends to bring concepts and terms into sharper focus, sharper and narrower than the pioneers required for their primitive needs.</P> <P><EM>Expansion</EM> recognizes that concepts have a greater utility and greater variation than many pioneers may have recognized.</P> <P>Refinement can also recognize that a concept&nbsp;or term&nbsp;may be&nbsp;relatively generic or general and that there is value in <EM>specialization</EM> or subsetting of a concept or term. The specialized concepts essentially <EM>fan in</EM> to the more general concept.</P> <P>Expansion can also recognize that a concept or term can be <EM>supplemented</EM> to increase its utility for certain forms of application. The more general concepts essentially <EM>fan out</EM> to the supplemented concepts and terms.</P> <P>Refinement implies a many-to-one relationship of the refinements to the general concept. Alternatively, there is a one-to-many relationship between a general concept and its refinements.</P> <P>Expansion implies a one-to-many relationship from the general concept to the expanded concepts. Alternatively, there is a many-to-one relationship between expanded concepts and their general concept.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-510585392948601371?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-79211047315422230302009-02-15T18:12:00.000-05:002009-02-15T18:14:17.519-05:00<P>There was an amusing aphorism about truth and fiction&nbsp;in the new movie <EM>The International</EM> (with Clive Owen and Naomi Watts.) I may not have the exact wording, but it is roughly:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>(Or maybe it was "<EM>There is a&nbsp;difference between truth and fiction&nbsp;-- fiction has to make sense.</EM>")</P> <P>That sounded like it was probably a noteworthy quote from somebody, so I did a Google search. Mark Twain's name popped up a few times with various wordings. I did another search using his name and found these <EM>two</EM>&nbsp;quotes on <A href="http://www.brainyquote.com">BrainyQuote.com</A>, so&nbsp;they are&nbsp;probably the definitive quotes:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.</EM></P> <P><EM>Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>A similar quote is <A href="http://quotationsbook.com/quote/39963/">attributed to Rosten, Leo</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>Truth is stranger than fiction; fiction has to make sense.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And a similar quote is <A href="http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/125">attributed to Tom Clancy</A>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>My suspicion is that the film used Clancy's version. If I ever meet Clancy, I'll ask if he "borrowed" from Twain's adage.</P> <P>Finally, <A href="http://www.galexi.com/alex/whoami3.html">Alex Lane asserts</A> that Twain's adage is <EM>"roundly refuted"</EM>&nbsp;by the popularity of&nbsp;<EM><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Files">The X-Files</A></EM>.</P> <P>So, can we use the fact that a proposition "makes sense" as a criteria for judging truth or lie, fact or fiction? If not, what good is it for us to obsess over whether anything "makes sense"?</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-7921104731542223030?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-48735115417901432622009-02-15T08:07:00.000-05:002009-02-15T08:09:21.274-05:00<P>Even the dictionary is not completely static and engraved in stone. In addition to the appearance of new words, old words can take on new meanings and cease to necessarily connote old meanings. Over time, the editors of dictionaries try to track the evolution of the meanings of words and phrases in both written and spoken language. Even when the dictionary is quite clear and most people solidly recognize the "official" meaning of a word, there will always be outliers, renegades, and revolutionaries (evolutionaries?) who insist on redefining words to have meanings of their own choice or "context." Dictionary editors do a fairly good job of tracking and reporting the evolution of meanings of words. Enter the Semantic Web.</P> <P>The Semantic Web is not about natural language per se, but there is an intention to represent or at least indicate real-world concepts using URI resources and inferences.</P> <P>There was an interesting email thread on&nbsp;the W3C&nbsp;Semantic Web email list triggered by an email from Jeremy J. Carroll, Chief Product Architect at <A href="http://www.topquadrant.com">TopQuadrant</A> with the subject line "<A href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009Feb/0020.html">live meaning and dead languages</A>." Jeremy opined that:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>In terms of meaning on the web, I see that the web as a place where the life world is produced, by active extensions of our linguistic apparatus. I hence have an aversion to techniques and technologies that somehow pretend that meaning on the web, and in particular the semantic web, should or could be made static and somehow lifeless. So, I have difficulty seeing the meaning of any URI as univocal or fixed or even particularly well-defined. This leads to some hesitation concerning systems of definitions and axioms built on top of such univocity.</EM></P> <P><EM>I think this worry becomes more so as axioms and systems of axioms become more complicated. (I just about see similarities between OWL2 and the Shorter Latin Primer I had at high school).</EM></P> <P><EM>A term which is too tightly nailed down in its relationship to other terms has been dug into an early grave. Having fixed its meaning, as our world moves on, the term will become useless.</EM></P> <P><EM>The trick, in natural language, is that the meaning of terms is somewhat loose, and moves with the times, while still having some limits.<BR>This looseness of definition gives rise to some misunderstandings (aka interoperability failures), but not too many, we hope.</EM></P> <P><EM>So I wonder, as some people try to describe some part of their world with great precision, using the latest and greatest formal techniques, just how long that way of describing the world will last. Maybe there is a role in such precision in allowing us to be clear about differences of opinion --- but it doesn't seem to me to be a good foundation for building knowledge.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>He tells us that his thoughts were in part inspired by his recent reading of the book <A href="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=finaxyz-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=0944344879&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr">Emptiness &amp; Brightness by Don Cupitt</A>, from which he quotes:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>By language, I mean the dance of signs, the continuous process of symbolic exchange between people, the humming communication network of which the human life world consists. I mean also to invoke the vast strange and multi-dimensional world of linguistic mean-ing -- and I am hyphenating mean-ing, like be-ing, because &lt;em&gt;mean-ing is a process too&lt;/em&gt;. We need to make this point because for so long European intellectuals studied only dead languages -- Latin, Greek and Hebrew -- and failed to grasp the way the transactions of life are carried out and the life world is produced and formed by the &lt;em&gt;motion&lt;/em&gt; of living language.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The book is (of course) available at Amazon:</P> <P dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" align=center><IFRAME style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=finaxyz-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=0944344879&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" frameBorder=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME></P> <P>There ensued a long discussion on the email list, including this issue of the distinction or disparity of the Semantic Web and natural language. This unresolved aspect of the Semantic Web will continue to haunt the practical application of the Semantic Web until somebody comes up with a model to transcend "Web" meaning and human meaning. Meanwhile, practitioners will continue to invent all manner of contrived methods for pretending that the vast gap between the two does not exist.</P> <P>My immediate reaction to Jeremy's original email, sent directly to him, was:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>That is why the Semantic Web is based on URIs rather than "keywords" -- as "meaning" evolves over time, people can simply construct new URIs representing the same natural language text but with the new "meaning." Sure, there is always the problem of misuse of URI when the associated natural language text "matches" but the meaning is not aligned with the real world context, but that is always going to be true in any language system, natural or non-natural. Over time, people can gradually detect "meaning misalignment" (or even "suspected meaning misalignment") and add knowledge of the perceived misalignment, so that the perceived strength of any inferences can be reduced to reflect the ambiguity of any inferred meaning.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In summary, we have two big problems here: 1) representing real-world meaning in the Semantic Web, and 2) tracking evolution of real-world meaning in the Semantic Web.</P> <P>There are at least four distinct forms of variation in meaning that need to be tracked:</P> <OL> <LI>Meaning evolves over time, either to take the meaning in a different direction or simply to refine or expand the existing direction.</LI> <LI>Difference camps or contexts have distinct interpretations.</LI> <LI>Different individuals interpret and use terms or concepts differently.</LI> <LI>Obsolete terms and concepts which have been superseded with distinct, newer terms and concepts.</LI></OL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8688547633622891"; /* 234x60, created 2/29/08 */ google_ad_slot = "4882650543"; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 60; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4283909047408143094-4873511541790143262?l=semanticabyss.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4283909047408143094.post-89377653445999455562009-02-12T08:45:00.000-05:002009-02-12T08:47:15.684-05:00<P>Although semantic data mining has a lot of potential, it is quite a minefield of tricky issues. Even if we successfully filter, say, a blog post or purported article on a Web site into succinct statements, we then have the issue of determining the veracity of those statements. That is difficult enough in its own right,