You Are Here
Posted by cadsmith on August 3, 2007
Some further consideration of surfaces.
Edges and corners are where these meet. There are studies of topological problems that effectively yield to solutions where these occur, e.g. paths or interconnects, & power laws.
The players in the semantic world themselves form surfaces, e.g. humans, information, devices, and environment (H/I/D/E). Each of these classes can be combined using one or more instances. The user can also be seen as a consequence of these systems, e.g. follow single-user, multi-user, trusted-user, remote-user, profile, social-network, & proxy developments. The connections between surfaces might include the exhange files, schema, interfaces, protocols, & controls. Testers find their way through the seams identifying anomalies & occasionally reporting neat tricks or workarounds. Failures ironically lead to improvements in the systems. Users also enact this role, possibly involuntarily. Affinity groups of individuals & organizations usually form from members with common interests & complementary strengths. The Semantic Web may eventually be such a user.
An interesting paradox seems to arise when one considers that it would be Web Science that would be considered responsible for disproving the existence of the Semantic Web.
We can assume that the web exists since the source of this is a blog post. Characterizing the exact identity remains difficult since the contents are often replaced and only a tiny fraction are searchable, the servers vary, the domain names change, entire new continents of users are being added. However, the fact remains testable, and almost always leads to a positive conclusion.
The term “the semantic web” may be interpreted by some as an oxymoron since, without the users, the system would be meaningless. The contents would continuously be reified until all of the rules and logic have been exhausted, then the information is as perfect as it gets and the game is over. This can be extended by plugging in sensors to the physics of the environment so that additional data is added, assuming there are some ontology generation mechanisms for the system to throw new theories at itself. It either probably continues to find out how they fail or it agrees on the ultimate truth. In the former case, it did not fulfill its function, therefore it has not achieved the label & in the latter case, it is again deterministic which seems to be a contradiction in terms. External users might displace it to several locations in the universe in order to increase confidence in the result or vice-versa. If users are not involved, it can forego the etymology & other human factors which would seem to simplify the problem. Of course, it could then also then pick a different name, other than semantic web & declare itself triumphant, e.g. the beginning of The Engine.
Web science may or may not be reflexive. It may be considered a science of the web, i.e. concerning it but not contained by it. It may be able to comprehend formalizable theories.
It is likely up to the SW creators to define what will become the classic tests, as Turing had previously done for his computer design. Incidentally, the term “test” did not appear in one of the proposals:
An RDF version of this argument might be a longer. It might be solvable within the context of particular domains as special cases. Having to deal with the media, wikis & blogs that can add a mass of data to counter perceived biases might make the general solution an ongoing effort. They have various measures of reliability for web-generated-content.
(BTW, an additional factor for the Trusted Menu might involve nutrition as the news about demographics, health & quality of food-processing emphasizes.)