Comments on: Tales from the Dark Side - continued http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/ Weblog for the Mindswap research group at University of Maryland Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:33:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.10 by: CollaBlog » Blog Archive » Just a little bit http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-10858 Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:44:35 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-10858 [...] Mi sono imbattuto nel blog del creatore di SWOOP e ho trovato alcuni post molto interessanti. Cito un post, Tales from the Dark Side - continued, che dovrebbe diventare un editoriale per IEEE IS The point is there’s a lot happening in the Semantic Web space that is exciting and important, but which is coming from the “Web” side, rather than the AI space. As a result, to many AI researchers this is an unknown part of the technology, and thus the “dark side” allusion. The need to organize knowledge in some formal way, such as the expressive ontologies so dear to us in the AI community, is only one way to approach things, especially when there are social processes in place to help one navigate the tangled mess that the Web provides. Or to use just one specific example, as an information retrieval challenge YouTube is a disaster, but as a way of spreading video in a viral way across the social structures of the World Wide Web, it is an unmatched success. For many AI researchers, this social part of the Web really is like the dark side of the moon. We’re so used to thinking that “knowledge is power,” that we fall into a slippery slope, “more is better,” fallacy. If some expressivity is good, lots must be great, and in some cases this is correct. What we forget, however, is something I’ve been saying for a long time, it’s become sort of a catch phrase in Semantic Web circles, “a little semantics goes a long way.” In fact, something I’m just now beginning to understand, is exactly how little is needed to go a long way on something as mind-boggling huge and unorganized as the World Wide Web. By being able to, even heuristically, equate things found in different web applications to one another, a whole range of mash-ups and other Web applications become possible. A very little piece of semantics, multiplied by the billions of things it can be applied to on the Web, can be a lot of power. Semantic Web developers are beginning to understand that our technology can similarly gain use by being successfully embedded into the somewhat chaotic, but always exciting, world of Web Applications. This opens up a brand-new playground for us to explore largely unexamined approaches in which a little AI, coupled with the very “long tail” of the Web, opens up new and exciting possibilities for a very different class of (just a little bit) intelligent systems. collaborative tagging FOAF ontology owl RDF web2.0 [...] […] Mi sono imbattuto nel blog del creatore di SWOOP e ho trovato alcuni post molto interessanti. Cito un post, Tales from the Dark Side - continued, che dovrebbe diventare un editoriale per IEEE IS The point is there’s a lot happening in the Semantic Web space that is exciting and important, but which is coming from the “Web” side, rather than the AI space. As a result, to many AI researchers this is an unknown part of the technology, and thus the “dark side” allusion. The need to organize knowledge in some formal way, such as the expressive ontologies so dear to us in the AI community, is only one way to approach things, especially when there are social processes in place to help one navigate the tangled mess that the Web provides. Or to use just one specific example, as an information retrieval challenge YouTube is a disaster, but as a way of spreading video in a viral way across the social structures of the World Wide Web, it is an unmatched success. For many AI researchers, this social part of the Web really is like the dark side of the moon. We’re so used to thinking that “knowledge is power,” that we fall into a slippery slope, “more is better,” fallacy. If some expressivity is good, lots must be great, and in some cases this is correct. What we forget, however, is something I’ve been saying for a long time, it’s become sort of a catch phrase in Semantic Web circles, “a little semantics goes a long way.” In fact, something I’m just now beginning to understand, is exactly how little is needed to go a long way on something as mind-boggling huge and unorganized as the World Wide Web. By being able to, even heuristically, equate things found in different web applications to one another, a whole range of mash-ups and other Web applications become possible. A very little piece of semantics, multiplied by the billions of things it can be applied to on the Web, can be a lot of power. Semantic Web developers are beginning to understand that our technology can similarly gain use by being successfully embedded into the somewhat chaotic, but always exciting, world of Web Applications. This opens up a brand-new playground for us to explore largely unexamined approaches in which a little AI, coupled with the very “long tail” of the Web, opens up new and exciting possibilities for a very different class of (just a little bit) intelligent systems. collaborative tagging FOAF ontology owl RDF web2.0 […]

]]> by: Dennis L. Thomas http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7997 Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:46:43 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7997 In as much as W3C Semantic Web and AI are paving new and important ground, I still see three major hurdles that suggest that at some point, innovation must give way to real invention. First, I do not see W3C as sematic, but rather as linguistic. It's all about language and descriptions, not the "language of thought," that pure conceptual meaning we have in our heads. Language is a good system for general communication, especially diplomatic, but not so for precise communication of precise concepts and ideas. The idea of making an arbitrarily agreed upon system of communication (language), that is adrift and ever changing, a technological standard does not make sense on a small or large scale?? There are far too many religions in technology to think that a world of creative cats will all of a sudden align to someone elses standard. I think science will set that standard, not organizations. When it does, we will make the jump across the linguistic/semantic gap into the world of machines that understand the language of thought. Secondly, I think the word "scalability" is right on the money. Isn't that what its all about? When I think of all the variables associated with every facit of human knowledge, it seems to me that the most pressing problem that technology faces is piercing the complexity barrier with a new architecture that scales proportional to content. A new invention that can integrate unlimited variables to capture precise meaning. I agree with the writer that this is the core goal/value of AI. Otherwise, we are left will more layers of structure, logic and language - with all of that, machines will never learn. Finally, I see the internet and the network-centric world in general, as a conveyor for information, not knowledge. Any time people have to interpret data, documents and objects to make sense of its content, it is a sure sign that only a small part of knowledge is being conveyed. The missing ingredient is theory, the conditional reasoning power that humans carry around in their brains. When theory and information combine, their is knowledge - the stuff that decreases the uncertainty if a quantum world. Kudos for a good article. In as much as W3C Semantic Web and AI are paving new and important ground, I still see three major hurdles that suggest that at some point, innovation must give way to real invention. First, I do not see W3C as sematic, but rather as linguistic. It’s all about language and descriptions, not the “language of thought,” that pure conceptual meaning we have in our heads. Language is a good system for general communication, especially diplomatic, but not so for precise communication of precise concepts and ideas. The idea of making an arbitrarily agreed upon system of communication (language), that is adrift and ever changing, a technological standard does not make sense on a small or large scale?? There are far too many religions in technology to think that a world of creative cats will all of a sudden align to someone elses standard. I think science will set that standard, not organizations. When it does, we will make the jump across the linguistic/semantic gap into the world of machines that understand the language of thought.

Secondly, I think the word “scalability” is right on the money. Isn’t that what its all about? When I think of all the variables associated with every facit of human knowledge, it seems to me that the most pressing problem that technology faces is piercing the complexity barrier with a new architecture that scales proportional to content. A new invention that can integrate unlimited variables to capture precise meaning. I agree with the writer that this is the core goal/value of AI. Otherwise, we are left will more layers of structure, logic and language - with all of that, machines will never learn.

Finally, I see the internet and the network-centric world in general, as a conveyor for information, not knowledge. Any time people have to interpret data, documents and objects to make sense of its content, it is a sure sign that only a small part of knowledge is being conveyed. The missing ingredient is theory, the conditional reasoning power that humans carry around in their brains. When theory and information combine, their is knowledge - the stuff that decreases the uncertainty if a quantum world.

Kudos for a good article.

]]> by: rascunho » Seção de dados do blog » links for 2006-12-19 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7721 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:25:55 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7721 [...] Mindswap Weblog » Blog Archive » Tales from the Dark Side - continued Under the gun for my editorial in IEEE Intelligent Systems, I decided I would continue with the “dark side” theme, and see if I could state it coherently in a form that non-PlanetRDF AI folks might understand. (tags: www.mindswap.org 2006 web_semântica rdf editorial blog_post xml ontology semantic_web) [...] […] Mindswap Weblog » Blog Archive » Tales from the Dark Side - continued Under the gun for my editorial in IEEE Intelligent Systems, I decided I would continue with the “dark side” theme, and see if I could state it coherently in a form that non-PlanetRDF AI folks might understand. (tags: www.mindswap.org 2006 web_semântica rdf editorial blog_post xml ontology semantic_web) […]

]]> by: Phil Dawes’ Stuff » Dark side of the semantic web http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7686 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:27:52 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7686 [...] I haven’t said anything much about semantic web stuff for a while as I’ve been occupied with other things. However Jim Hendler’s ‘Tales from the Dark Side’ piece in IEEE Intelligent Systems reawoke an old interest. In short: I still think the RDF people have got it wrong with URIs, and so far nobody’s convinced me otherwise. [...] […] I haven’t said anything much about semantic web stuff for a while as I’ve been occupied with other things. However Jim Hendler’s ‘Tales from the Dark Side’ piece in IEEE Intelligent Systems reawoke an old interest. In short: I still think the RDF people have got it wrong with URIs, and so far nobody’s convinced me otherwise. […]

]]> by: domelhor.net http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7594 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:52:09 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7594 <strong>O lado negro da semantic web...</strong> Artigo em pr-publicao para o IEEE Inteligent Systems, para pessoas que no gostem particularmente de RDF... O lado negro da semantic web…

Artigo em pr-publicao para o IEEE Inteligent Systems, para pessoas que no gostem particularmente de RDF…

]]> by: Taylor Cowan http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7462 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:22:54 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7462 I think I'm in agreement with your general direction but found it odd that you link the low end with "useful solutions available in the RDF and OWL world". You are really high end if that's low end to you. One suggestion would be for the OWL/RDF world to attempt to come to some agreement on a very restricted list of name spaces for low level semantics (Dublin core, etc.). I like microformats for that reason, the community insists on brevity and avoids duplication, while OWL/RDF space boggles the mind. Correct me please, but I see RDF people representing the same semantic concepts in a myriad of name spaces, ultimately self defeating. For example, storing the "description" of something. In a typical OWL doc you'll find 4 or five different ways of storing that text. At the RDF level, then the OWL level, then there's the dublin core namespace, and often the domain ontology will declare it's own. I'm sure there's some derision at microformats, but finally we have a clear way to indicate the geo co-ordinates of an event, place, etc. and it's easy and lucid to the rest of us. That's a "raisin" that brings tremendous value. Once all images are geo tagged, we need not append mounds of non-temporal meta data to the image, as the location acts as a key to gather more info about where the picture was taken. I think I’m in agreement with your general direction but found it odd that you link the low end with “useful solutions available in the RDF and OWL world”. You are really high end if that’s low end to you. One suggestion would be for the OWL/RDF world to attempt to come to some agreement on a very restricted list of name spaces for low level semantics (Dublin core, etc.). I like microformats for that reason, the community insists on brevity and avoids duplication, while OWL/RDF space boggles the mind.

Correct me please, but I see RDF people representing the same semantic concepts in a myriad of name spaces, ultimately self defeating. For example, storing the “description” of something. In a typical OWL doc you’ll find 4 or five different ways of storing that text. At the RDF level, then the OWL level, then there’s the dublin core namespace, and often the domain ontology will declare it’s own.

I’m sure there’s some derision at microformats, but finally we have a clear way to indicate the geo co-ordinates of an event, place, etc. and it’s easy and lucid to the rest of us. That’s a “raisin” that brings tremendous value. Once all images are geo tagged, we need not append mounds of non-temporal meta data to the image, as the location acts as a key to gather more info about where the picture was taken.

]]> by: Internet Alchemy » Set the Controls for the Heart of the Web http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7348 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:23:49 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7348 [...] Jim Hendler continues his exploration of the dark side of the semantic web with a must-read editorial for IEEE Intelligent Systems, the well-respected AI journal: A key realization that Berners-Lee had with respect to the design of RDF is having unique names for different terms, with a social convention for precisely differentiating them, could in and of itself be an important addition to the Web. If you and I decide that we will use the term “http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler/elephant” to designate some particular entity, then it really doesn’t matter what the other blind men think it is, they won’t be confused when they use the natural language term “elephant” which is not even close, lexigraphically, to the longer term you and I are using. And if they choose to use their own URI, “http://www.other.blind.guys.org/elephant” it won’t get confused with ours. [...] […] Jim Hendler continues his exploration of the dark side of the semantic web with a must-read editorial for IEEE Intelligent Systems, the well-respected AI journal: A key realization that Berners-Lee had with respect to the design of RDF is having unique names for different terms, with a social convention for precisely differentiating them, could in and of itself be an important addition to the Web. If you and I decide that we will use the term “http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler/elephant” to designate some particular entity, then it really doesn’t matter what the other blind men think it is, they won’t be confused when they use the natural language term “elephant” which is not even close, lexigraphically, to the longer term you and I are using. And if they choose to use their own URI, “http://www.other.blind.guys.org/elephant” it won’t get confused with ours. […]

]]> by: James Hendler http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7324 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:25:48 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7324 yeah, but we also want to avoid things be separately rediscovered outside the standards - I've seen a lot of Web 2.0 stuff that would be better with some use of SW standards instead of their own homebrew ways of doing the same thing. I used to be asked "can't you just do this with XML" and our answer was "yes, we did" (interestingly I don't get asked that much anymore -- people are slowly beginning to realize what XML is and isn't good for) yeah, but we also want to avoid things be separately rediscovered outside the standards - I’ve seen a lot of Web 2.0 stuff that would be better with some use of SW standards instead of their own homebrew ways of doing the same thing.
I used to be asked “can’t you just do this with XML” and our answer was “yes, we did” (interestingly I don’t get asked that much anymore — people are slowly beginning to realize what XML is and isn’t good for)

]]> by: Danny http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7314 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:34:40 +0000 http://www.mindswap.org/blog/2006/12/14/tales-from-the-dark-side-continued/#comment-7314 Great stuff! (Semantic Raisins had me puzzled for a minute...) Coincidentally I just got back the edited draft of part 2 of a thing I'm doing for a column in IEEE Internet Computing, tidy it in the morning (part one's <a href="http://dsonline.computer.org/portal/pages/dsonline/2006/12/w6web.xml" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Same general area, slightly different angle. I'm suggesting that although it might not involve RDF, a lot of the Web 2.0 stuff is heading towards the Semantic Web by putting data and new kinds of wiring on the Web. (All it's lacking are the languages to join it all together...). Sometimes seems like it might be an emergent property of the Web to fill in its own missing bits, though that's heading into weird territory ;-) Great stuff! (Semantic Raisins had me puzzled for a minute…)

Coincidentally I just got back the edited draft of part 2 of a thing I’m doing for a column in IEEE Internet Computing, tidy it in the morning (part one’s here). Same general area, slightly different angle. I’m suggesting that although it might not involve RDF, a lot of the Web 2.0 stuff is heading towards the Semantic Web by putting data and new kinds of wiring on the Web. (All it’s lacking are the languages to join it all together…). Sometimes seems like it might be an emergent property of the Web to fill in its own missing bits, though that’s heading into weird territory ;-)

]]>