4 ms·
Spot on. That given example neither convinces me. The second sentence is actually false/incomplete and would mislead not only a reasoner, but a human too. The
by haddr 11y ago
Spot on.
That given example neither convinces me.
The second sentence is actually false/incomplete and would mislead not only a reasoner, but a human too.
The problem with author's thesis is that he want's semantic web to universally describe the whole world. This is impossible because the world is changing and sometimes contradictory.
OWL for instance doesn't cover such assumptions, and in general most knowledge representation frameworks are monotonic, so it's impossible for instance to withdraw some fact by adding a new one. That what might be a real limitation of the Semantic Web as we know it.
- nickbauman 11y agoThe second sentence is something being debated as a result of the Citizen's United ruling, so his essay seems oddly prescient. > the world is changing and sometimes contradictory If you think ontologies don't change and will not require constant maintenance I have a bridge to sell you.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 11y agoNot particularly prescient; the issue didn't appear with Citizen's United. Back then, there was already a law proposal (the McCain-Feingold bill) to limit spending by corporations and other groups on political ads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC
- nickbauman 11y agoMcCain-Feingold is about limiting corporations behaving like citizens. Citizens United is the expansion thereby making the conclusion much more logical today than when it was first written in 2003.
- icebraining 11y agoYes, but I linked to McConnell v. FEC, which was a challenge to McCain-Feingold much like Citizens United v. FEC. The issue was already on the table, the decision just happen to go the other way.