Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Going from a 'Web of links' to a 'Web of meaning'

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the linked-to-linked-to-linked-to-linked-to dept.

neutron_p writes "Computer scientists from Lehigh University are building the Semantic Web, which will handle more data, resolve contradictions and draw inferences from users' queries. The new improved Web will also combine pieces of information from multiple sites in order to find answers to questions."

5 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Resolve Contradictions? by NoTheory · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll have to rtfa to see what they propose, but just the principle of resolving contradictions is a really difficult one, and most theories of knowledge (which are essentially networks of facts) aren't terribly robust, and contradiction repair, which involves running the entire network to find invalid assumptions, and then propigating the changes is NP complete :| i'm not positive that contradiction resolution is a reasonable thing to expect out of a massive distributed network.

    --
    There are lives at stake here!
  2. Unless by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You gotta understand that "meaning" has no meaning at all to machines, at least not yet.

    And even for humans, the "meaning" of a certain thing can be different thing to different people !

    Although I applaud the job they are doing for Semantic Web, I wonder how they can inject "meaning" into the whole thing.

    My biggest fear is the 1984-like "my meaning is THE meaning and you canna have any other meaning" thing.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  3. in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...handle more data, resolve contradictions and draw inferences from users' queries. The new improved Web will also combine pieces of information from multiple sites in order to find answers to questions.

    It will essentially be a librarian?

    The problem with this is that users first need to know what the heck they're actually looking for. You can draw as many inferences as you like, but so long as people search for "art" when they're interested in "tattoos" you aren't going to get much that's relevant. And THAT is the biggest problem with your average user--and that's what a librarian is good at. Asking questions until people verbalize what they really need.

  4. If for no other reason than IP law by ShatteredDream · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This could create huge problems for people to stay on the right side of copyright law. A medium that pulls information from several different sources could potentially make it much harder to avoid copyright infringement. For example, you pull from a Wikipedia entry, a NY Times entry and a Reason editorial. You better keep track of where you got each part if you use them in any of your own research, commentary, etc.

    How does it combine information from different sources in a way that keeps the user knowledgeable about where the data came from? How do you know who to cite, or whether something you're excerpting can be used in the context you want, when your "semantic web browser" pulled the data and combined it coherently or incoherently into a mish mosh of data sources?

    Am I the only one who thinks that this could be an IP trial lawyer's wet dream?

    --
    Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
  5. Re:Ummm by LionKimbro · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Two things:

    1. "Webs of trust." People will make pages telling what pages they believe have a good reputation, and generally tells the truth. If someone fills the web with a ton of random statements, they will have a low reputation.
    2. Computers will have "beliefs" reflecting their owner's own. You will tell the computer, "I believe this is true," and the computer will absorb the package of information. You can say, "I believe this is false," and the computer will absorb the package of information, and put it into the "bogus" bin.