Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
This is precisely so. This is why the terms "record of authority", "authoritative source" and "process ownership" are introduced into these discussions. Specific classification databases must be developed and made available as services by credible authorities who control/own a process and offer a guarantee over that process by which the classification is created and to which all authorities represented as such attest as having completed in accordance with the public contract. This is no different than using NIST, ISO, United Labs or any other credited authority as the owner source (creates the context of authority) for the resource. Such services can be costed. The reason for the tremendous effort toward standardization of the representations made available by these services is to control cost under a guarantee of quality of service. If semantic services are to be used, they must have a corresponding means to guarantee and vouchsafe their authority. Otherwise, the SW becomes snake oil law. It is one thing to offer a free semantic service; caveat emptor. A semantic service that is to be used in formal contracting will more likely be caveat vendor. You need a means to create and establish the terms and conditions of such services. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Martin Bryan [mailto:mtbryan@s...] What is needed is a standard way of identifying the contexts in which resources have been created. This is where RDF could help, if it could be used alongside standardized classification schemes. Rather than being a general purpose tool that can represent any relational database, it needs, if the semantic web is to be a usable thing, to become a set of specific classification databases with recorded meanings that can be referenced by those seeking to associate meaning with resources. Until this happens the web will never be a knowledge-base. Names and/or addresses are not enough to promote understanding.
|
