SUO: Re: article on the pitfalls of metadata
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Rich,
Expecting people to mark up their own texts is like expecting people
to communicate in parse trees or sentence diagrams. It's right up
there with thinking that people can translate whatever they are
doing with natural languages into plain vanilla literal FOL.
Expecting all that means that you have given up on AI
altogether and expect Nature -- people are a part of
Nature, too -- to phrase all its questions in the
form of their answers.
Welcome to Jeopardy!
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Richard Cooper wrote:
>
> There was an article on the web that was discussed
> in the Semantic Web list a while back. It might
> be useful to stimulate some more discussion on the
> ontology design issues we've been grappling with.
>
> Its titled: "Metacrap: Putting the torch to seven
> straw-men of the meta-utopia", and its posted at:
>
> http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
>
> The basic idea is that ontology designers can't
> forsee the human self interest that must inevitably
> foil their categorization of any subject area. At
> the end, he agrees that metadata is a useful thing,
> but stresses that it won't come from letting people
> fill in ontology forms because they will fudge the
> data into their own self interest.
>
> It seems to me this discussion could enlighten some
> of these CG and SUO issues. Even a Physics ontology,
> Math, Biology, Algorithms, every kind of ontology
> has an unrealistic bias according to the auther.
>
> Anybody have any thoughts on this?
>
> Rich
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o