hmm... maybe SemanticWebBus is better...
The SemanticWeb has a different set of goals from most systems of logic. The idea is that, within the global semantic web, there will be a subset of the system which will be constrained in specific ways so as to achieve the tractability and efficiency which is no necessary in real applications. However, the semantic web itself will not define a reasoning engine. It will define valid operations, and will require consistency for them. On the semantic web in general, a party must be able to follow a proof of a theorem but is not expected to generate one.
This fundamental change goals from KR systems to the semantic web is loosely analogous with the goal change from conventional hypertext systems to the original Web design dropping link consistency in favor of expressive flexibility and scalability.The latter did not prevent individual web sites from having a strict hierarchical order or matrix structure, but it did not require it of the web as a whole. FactorMe
If there is a semantic web machine, then it is a proof validator, not a theorem prover. It can't find answers, it can't even check that an answer is right, but it can follow a simple explanation that an answer is right. The Semantic Web as a source of data should be fodder for automated reasoning systems of many kinds, but it as such not a reasoning system.
PPR:OpeningStatement is taken from Logic on the Web... ProxyTopic?
- "explanations" in cwm, vocabulary for proof exchange, Apr 2003 in www-rdf-logic; cites Stanford Inference Web, Euler, etc.
- XML concrete syntax early internal draft 29 Apr 2003 to SCL
SIP: Proof-Carrying Authorization