count me in, I'll post something tonight ... (01)
Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 wrote:
> CDSI WG,
>
> Given Pat Hayes' description (below) of what Jim Hendler refers to as
>"URI-based reference mechanism
> coupled with the standard for KR and other aspects is aimed
>exactly at scalability.":
>
> The key question now is: Could the above referenced technology (when
>it matures) be used to achieve semantic interoperability across large numbers
>of domains (with independently developed ontologies)? Any takers?
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>OK, here's my take on that.
>>
>>First, "standard for KR". I think all that Jim means is, the SWeb is
>>intended to use whatever is the best available KR mechanism that can
>>be adopted as a 'standard', ie which a wide enough spectrum of users
>>can be persuaded to agree to use. No such choice will be free from
>>controversy. OWL wasn't and isn't free from controversy, and nobody
>>even knows if a large enough community can ever be brought to
>>consensus on an acceptable Rule language. But assuming that some WG
>>can get its job completed, and produces a useful notation, then that
>>can be used on the SWeb. There are plenty of potential candidates
>>which are way more expressive than OWL readily available. So it would
>>be a mistake to identify the SWeb vision with OWL or DL technology in
>>particular. OWL-DL is just the first in what one hopes will be an
>>evolving series of KR standards which will provide the infrastructure
>>of the SWeb. Perhaps the next one will be more like
>>Python+Prolog on steroids. Or it may be a
>>breakthrough in CL reasoners using the guarded fragment, who knows?
>>The decision is as much political as technical, or even subject to
>>whims of intellectual fashion.
>>
>>"URI-based reference mechanism" is more interesting. This is one of
>>the few things that really is new and different about the SWeb: it is
>>part of the Web, and subject to Web conventions and protocols. It
>>isn't *just* applied ontology engineering. So, every SWeb ontology is
>>required to use names drawn from a (literally) global set of names.
>>The scope of these names is the entire Web. There are no 'locally
>>scoped' or 'private'
>>names on the Sweb. So if your ontology uses a name for a concept, my
>>ontology can use it too.
>>Anyone can 'say' anything about everyone else's concepts, on the Sweb.
>>This is a whole new game, which nobody has played before. A can
>>introduce a concept called A:thingie1 and B can introduce B:thingie2,
>>and C can then, entirely independently and without asking for A or B's
>>permission, assert that (say) A:thingie1 is the same as B:thingie2. A
>>and B may disagree: tough tittie, they can't stop C from making the
>>assertion. C can say things about A's ontology, in fact, such as
>>assert that it is all BS. The globality of the namespace has a whole
>>range of consequences which we are only beginning to explore. And
>>being URIs (actually IRIs these
>>days) , these names can also be used as identifiers which *access*
>>things on the Web.
>>Whether these accessed things should be the referents of the names is
>>currently controversial (I think not, in general), but that they
>>access
>>*something* is not even remotely at issue. So SWeb concept names have
>>a whole new dimensionality to them, which is (or at any rate can be)
>>orthogonal to their use as referring names. In particular, it allows
>>ontologies to "address" other ontologies (a pale version of which is
>>the OWL:imports primitive, but one can do a lot more than this), which
>>obviously has many potential applications relevant to scaling.
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>BTW, I entirely agree with Jim's optimism. I think people are way too
>>scared of inconsistencies. Lets wait and see what problems actually
>>crop up before trying to solve or avoid ones that we only worry about
>>rather than actually find.
>>
>>Pat
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
> To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
> Community Wiki:
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG
>
>
>
> (02)
--
Best wishes, (03)
Rick (04)
email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
cell: 703-201-9129 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (06)
|