MetaPerspectives, Metaphysics, and Metadata - Semantic Web as Nonsense
If I have a concept in my mind and you have a concept in yours, unless we share a mind, that concept is different in each instance thereof.
The Semantic Web would be difficult to realize - either we must have multiple URI’s for the same triples, or we must have one that is the URI of God. If we have multiple instances of URIs for the same triple elements, we would need an additional layer of decision making that - as far as I know - hasn’t been addressed yet.
However, I know what my concepts are and I know what things mean to me. I have standards. I have Universals and am aware of particulars. My standards are not Standard, but they are mine, and they are the only ones I can have. In church and within the context of the Semantic Web, we make statements about Universals.
Universals, however, do not exist. All that exists are particulars. It is kind of like calling the die from which a toy is cast the best example of that toy. Kind of like that. Sort of.
A Semantic Web would find difficulty therein. It cannot be a die that casts Ontology.
However, within a specific context, a Universal can be defined. We do this all the time. Look at Dictionaries. They are full of nothing but Universals.
Organizations can make use of their data and share their data with other organizations who have agreed upon a standard/Universal ontology. Databases have rules within them. Data has type. There is an order and method that has been established, standardized, and made utilitarian.
I can also set up my own. I have things that are useful to me and me only. I also share similar perspective with select others upon select items vulnerable to perspective.
But I am seriously doubting that somehow the Theoretical will transcend and become actual, wrapped in modus pollens, within an environment that has a demi-Authority. It is a kind of contradiction.
It is all well and good to speak of Web 2.0 and collaboration, but internet users do not control the internet. They use tools that are given to them; they use tools that are built within specific parameters, to fulfill a specific purpose, and come from a specific perspective. Indeed, we need eyes to see. I am colorblind. I am 5′9″ tall. I used to go tanning quite a bit. I have prejudices, experiences, etc. I am sure my perspective is different that yours for the aforementioned reasons and innumerable others. We have perspective. We can talk about Perspective.
I don’t know that Perspective is something that can be realized by any one human being. I think that once we have it, it becomes perspective.
And so I believe that the Semantic Web, once realized, becomes the semantic web.
It is a good thing.
It can be real.
And it can be forever changing the Semantic Web, as particulars forever redefine Universals.
A nice paper on Universals and particulars.
A nice piece on Universals and meaning.
The Semantic Web *must* rely upon Ontology driven by a singular “God’s Eye” entity, but it is likely a metaphysical impossibility.
Metaphysics aren’t in regard to the world, metadata, or anything you or I could ever experience.
I submit that the Semantic Web is nonsensical. (Actually A.J. Ayer did this a long time ago… way before the internet, even.)
But clearly, we can leverage perspective and intention to find common ground within controlled and defined environments.
Good stuff.
Obviously, there is a lot more to say here, but I wanted to jot this down while I was thinking about it. I’m not convinced of anything. I only have my current perspective upon the Issue.
Thanks,
Josh Milane
MIT Technical, Boston
September 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I said this on the Digg page for this entry, but it does more good to post feedback to the source. The Semantic Web doesn’t rely upon a single ontology driven by any single entity. The Semantic Web relies on ontology agreements. The more entities that agree on which ontologies they work with, the greater the strength of the Semantic Web will be.
September 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I responded to you on the Digg page. You are saying a semblance of what I am saying. The Semantic Web with all capital letters needs a Semantic Ontology. We can have semantic webs, but not an uber Semantic Web. Until all entities agree upon an ontology, we will not have Ontology. We will not have Semantic Web. I think we can have semantic webs within closed environments, but in the wild? Tell me what a “happy meal” is on the Semantic Web? We need additional layers, compromise, INSTANCES of the Semantic Web: semantic webs.
September 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
If I have a concept in my mind and you have a concept in yours, unless we share a mind, that concept is different in each instance thereof.
That is true, while it exists only in our minds alone. As soon as we share it, however, we have to use language and all language is a set of concepts which must ultimately be resolvable to primaries or concretes. In a similar way that we reason against statements in a language, computers can reason against the same or similar statements. By “reasoning”, I am not talking about intellegence in a “human mind” sense. I just mean the simple ability to infer new meaning based on the context of statements and on statements that have already been made.
I think that the term “Semantic Web” was never meant to express one web that is semantically understood through the brilliant reasoning of some global system or anything like that. It simply means - a web that is now semantically enabled; a new “dark” web that is serving machines as much as the humans 9on our behalf, of course).
September 8th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Cody,
I happen to largely agree with you. However, as I am sure you are aware, language is an accepted bastardization of what is in our minds. Reasoning is not enough. Reasoning may fall prey to cultural or religious factors.
If the Semantic Web is meant to fulfill the vision of a “machine-readable” internet, I think we have a shot at that. I just don’t know how useful it will be to me without an additional layer of decision making that allows me to impose myself upon It.
Great comment. Thank you.
Josh
September 9th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Personally, I think that since the point is agreeing on semantics, we will copy the mechanisms we use in the real world to the world of the semantic web.
When you think of it, when we express certain concepts in a conversation, we effectively negotiate their meaning, through spoken natural language. When we agree on the meaning - we can than gain some value from the conversation (pass a meaningful message).
The same goes for software agents in the semantic web - they talk about URIs (nouns) and agree about them using ontologies. The decision as to what is to be agreed upon is basically programmed into the software. You can say that the human prejudice is programmed into the software agents.
For example, I can program a computer program that contacts another agents using RDF and ontology. I can then choose to give more weight to properties and definitions given by your ontology as opposed to any other ontology, because *I* (the human me) trust *you* (the human you) better than I trust another ontology creator.