Re: DBpedia as possible project

On 02/11/10 12:15, Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Murray,
>
> I pretty much agree with your statements.
> [...]
>
>> being harvested as a Topic Map (that would be analogous to the
>> current flap over the subject that started this thread), it was
>
> There is no "flap", I am just disappointed by the fact that the
> initial topic map hides a lot of information and is (IMO) not very
> mappish (beside the fact that we can query the topic map for
> "regions"). Further, the mapping is not transparent: Benjamin Bock
> said: "We took garbage, we generated garbage". I'd be interested how
> they generated the garbage.

Hi Lars,

Well, I'm not trying to dwell on disagreement at all; I think we do
largely agree on most of the points given what I've read in your
messages.

I would likewise be interested in the processes used to generate the
Topic Map. That would be instructive. I wouldn't agree necessarily
with Benjamin in one sense (though I do recognise it as a throwaway
comment):  it wasn't garbage, it has a value x. What they did was
provide a starting point that permits an additional set of tools to
be applied. They added some value, y. So we can quibble over how
much x+y is, but the ability to now use that result is (to me anyway)
clearly a win. And I agree with what has been said before about it
being only a starting point.

> [...]
>> To adopt Lars' choice of words, I would submit that the use of an
>> uncontrolled, "informal ontology" for purposes of machine reasoning
>> would be almost completely useless, and potentially harmful.
>
> I also agree with that statement. If you try to translate a source
> into Topic Maps/RDF you should have some kind of knowledge about that
> particular domain.
>
> I don't eat the argument that WikiLeaks is garbage. And I don't eat
> the argument that every topic map is a Good Thing. Steve Pepper's
> Opera topic map tells us more about Topic Maps than the Afghanistan
> Diary War topic map in its current state. That's all I wanted to say.

But I doubt that Steve would argue that the Opera topic map is anything
more than a toy, a pedagogical and marketing tool. As with someone like
Doug Engelbart, I'm likewise concerned about the inadvertent misuse of
technology by people who should take responsibility for their work. In
the case of toys or experiments it's one thing, but to apply that same
lackadaisical approach to content that has security, political, safety,
or other important factors is to be irresponsible. The WikiLeaks material
is certainly in that realm, so those manipulating that content should
remember they're not playing with toys. Lives are at stake. That's not
to say not to do it, it's simply to take necessary precautions, to perform
due diligence, to act responsibly.

That's all I wanted to say.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray10 at altheim dot com>                       ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

       Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
       Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
       The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
       Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
                                       -- The Blue Cliff Record