Juan Chamero

Metodología Darwin

  • Aumentar el tamaño de la letra
  • Tamaño de letra predeterminado
  • Reducir el tamaño de la letra


Home Darwin versus W3C Visions - IV

Darwin versus W3C Visions - IV

Correo electrónico Imprimir PDF

Web Semantic

Darwin Vision versus W3C Vision- IV

The Path of the Middle Wisdom

W3C versus Darwin, two polar approaches that could reinforce each other

Dr. Juan Chamero, Esta dirección electrónica esta protegida contra spambots. Es necesario activar Javascript para visualizarla , Buenos Aires, Argentina February 15th 2009




Towards a Synthesis


"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"

    The Semantic Web utopia is a formidable Project. However W3C languages and tools created to make it possible are not yet tested and far from being universal, friendly and efficient. As we have said in the introduction of these reflections W3C does not care about how humans document their ideas but documents are the unique cognitive creatures of the Web Ocean as_it_is today. With unlimited time the W3C tools and languages will work as planned because they ideally enable and facilitate humans to document meanings properly resembling perfect WFF’s Well Formed Formulae of the Logic and also to “catch” via agents arbitrary pieces of knowledge out of the Web Ocean as long as they were documented as WFF’s. This strategy is advisable for scientific and technical documents issuing from now on and to universally manage scientific and technical databases as well but what to say about the actual knowledge asset dispersed as_it_is today in the Web ocean?. This knowledge is perfectly readable and understandable by humans even though not easily retrieved out of the Web Ocean because as of today documents are not semantically indexed.


Agents should fit humans not the contrary

    In order to find a “middle way” strategy to solve this “ab initio” inconsistency we may adopt the following hypothesis: humans document their ideas (ab initio also) reasonable well (following some rules and criteria) statistically. It means that we may define for any discipline of the Human Knowledge a “core” of WWD’s, Well Written Documents (adjusted to a given set of rules and criteria). The rest within each discipline “surrounds” semantically this core, adding ambiguity, fuzziness, noise, an why not?: not yet established meanings and potential seeds of wisdom. The first need is then to create agents smart enough to locate these cores and to understand them. Agents should fit humans not the contrary. This is a little more that common sense!.


Ah the imperfections and differences!

    Imperfections ad differences are the spice of life. It´s like the beauty, a circumstantial and “modal idea” surrounded by a probabilistic weighted neighborhood of acceptable forms of beauty ideally displayed onto a continuum. We have to remember that we are evolving creatures and as such we are subject to the evolution wheel. Evolution needs of differences in order to create new things and specially concepts when restricting ourselves to the cognitive realm. We also believe that the Web as_it_is today is a treasure that has to be preserved and that its nurturing via modal ideas and differences encouraged as much as possible.


The beginning of the beginning

    W3C was founded in October 1994, not too much in terms of organization life but old enough in terms of Web Development. W3C worked along almost 15 years going from “digital to mind” but no significant efforts were performed going from, “mind to digital”. This asymmetry is dangerous and costly for the IT&C community. Along the need to reestablish the equilibrium the beginning of the beginning would be to build the Web Thesaurus, paradoxically the first proposed Tim Berners Lee utopia. It means to unveil semantically the Web as_it_is at a given moment: for example today. It means to hierarchically map all existing meanings per language. In numbers the recognition of more than 170 main Human Knowledge domains, totaling from 10 to 15 million meanings per language hierarchically distributed along 300,000 to 400,000 subjects.


The meaning of meanings – next steps

    This is an intentional paradox. Meanings as objects must be understood by our mind which has the ability of recognizing meanings by using the verb “mean”: for example I mean “that”. So why not to imagine meanings as complex symbols of knowledge, let´s say something like symbols belonging to a “code”. If in Theory of Information when Bob transmits Alice [1011], Alice agrees she has received four bits of information and as a result of it she is acquainted that Bob wanted to communicate her that the “answer” for a given problem or information she had is somehow and somewhere in the box number 11 of her internal or external memory why not to extend the analogy?. When a person say I mean “that” why not to imagine that he/she has received a flash of information that brings of a sudden to his/her memory a vision of a specific meaning, perhaps one out of millions?.  We all manage reasonably well information, knowledge and intelligence as well as ideas and concepts..Our intuition suggests us that knowledge is a sort of fluid subtler than information and different from intelligence. When we say that an agent unveils information and knowledge we intuitively “know” what we mean by that difference. Information is related to pointing to something, many times the precise location of a piece of knowledge meanwhile knowledge is related to substance, to a necessary nutrient of our mind. When we say that an agent unveiled the hidden intelligence we mean that we have envisaged something like an structure, a frame, perhaps containing and specifying forms and modes of pieces of knowledge. 






Imágenes Polls

Poll Darwin

Darwin puede ser usado para


Poll Semántico I

La Semántica es la

Poll Semántico II

La Web Semántica es una

Poll Semántico III

El Conocimiento Humano es:

Poll Semántico IV

El Tesauro Web es

Usuarios Online

Tenemos 43 invitados conectado


Home Darwin versus W3C Visions - IV