The Semantic Web, Syllogism, and Worldview

 

Paper Review Form

 

Section I. Overview

 

A.  Reader Interest

           

            1.  Which category describes this manuscript?

                        ___Practice/Application/Case Study/Experience Report

                        _x_Research/Technology

                        ___Survey/Tutorial/How-To

 

B.  Content

           

            1.  Please explain how this manuscript advances this field of research and/or contributes something new to the literature.

           

1.       Is the manuscript technically sound?

            ___Yes

                        ___Appears to be - but didn't check completely

                        _x_Partially

                        ___No

 

C. Presentation

 

            1.  Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate?

                        _x_Yes

                        ___No

 

1.       Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references?  

___References are sufficient and appropriate

                        _x_Important references are missing; more references are needed

                        ___Number of references are excessive

 

2.       Does the introduction state the objectives of the manuscript in terms that encourage the reader to read on?

            ___Yes

                        _x_Could be improved

                        ___No

 

            4.  How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Is it focused?  Is the length appropriate for the topic?

                        _x_Satisfactory

                        __Could be improved

                        ___Poor

 

            5.  Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript.

                        ___Easy to read

                        _x_Readable - but requires some effort to understand

                        ___Difficult to read and understand

                        ___Unreadable

 

Section II. Evaluation

 

            Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice.

                        ___Award Quality

                        ___Excellent

                        ___Good

                        _x_Fair

                        ___Poor

 

 

Section III. Detailed Comments

 

In my personal idea, author has some points right. But obviously, he makes some mistakes in reasoning. He says;

 

" The creator of shirky.com lives in Brooklyn

- People who live in Brooklyn speak with a Brooklyn accent 

You could conclude from this pair of assertions that the creator of shirky.com pronounces it "shoiky.com." 

 

We can not infer that conclusion. Because the conclusion true, as long as the first two assumption surely true. But our second assumption is not a hundred percently true.

 

Again author says;

"Merging databases simply becomes a matter of recording in RDF somewhere that "Person Name" in your database is equivalent to "Name" in my database, and then throwing all of the information together and getting a processor to think about it."

 

In this case, he seems right. But that SW has some deficiency since it is in evoluation, doesn't mean that it is not going to succeed in the future.

 

And also he makes a wrong conclusion;

US citizens are people

- The First Amendment covers the rights of US citizens

- Nike is protected by the First Amendment

You could conclude from this that Nike is a person, and of course you would be right.

 

In this case, we can not conclude the last statement from the assumption given. To be able to conclude the last statement, we had to have in the second assumption "- The First Amendment covers the rights of US citizens, but nothing else"