>Pat (or anyone), (01)
Someone else will have to do this. I have no idea
what these distinctions mean in this kind of a
context. When did the WWWeb satisfy a 'proof of
concept' or a 'breadboard validation'? This seems
to be about engineering some kind of device, not
letting loose a social method of interaction. (02)
Pat (03)
>
> OK, if what you describe is a potential
>solution, at what level of technical maturity
>(using scale below, from the paper) would you
>rate this, and please consider scalability as
>part of this assessement?
>
>1. Basic principles observed and reported.
>2. Technology concept and/or application formulated.
>3. Analytical and experimental critical
>functions and/or characteristic proof of concept.
>4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment.
>5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment.
>6. System/subsystem model or prototype
>demonstration in a relevant environment.
>7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
>8. Actual system completed and 'flight
>qualified' through test and demonstration.
>9. Actual system 'flight proven' though successful mission operations.
>
>Jim Schoening
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:52 PM
>To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
>Cc: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] The next key question
>
>>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?
>
>Sure. The direct answer to your question is, no.
>BUt that is because your question as posed
>misses the point: the open publication paradigm
>allows ontologies to NOT be developed
>independently of one another. They will
>cross-refer, use parts of other ontologies, and
>include references - eventually, one hopes,
>'nuanced' references - to one another in a
>global network of semantic hyperlinks. And they
>will do this because to create a useful ontology
>by re-using and linking in this way will be
>vastly easier than building entire ontologies
>from scratch, in isolation from other ontology
>building. Think of the SWeb as a growing
>ontology 'library', freelyopen to all for
>modification and re-use. As pieces of this are
>written and found widely useful, the number of
>links to them (and the economic pressure on the
>community to find ways to preserve them) will
>grow, ensuring their even wider re-use. This
>effect snowballs on the Web, as we all know. As
>far as I can see, the pressures which make such
>phenomena as YouTube go from nothing to billions
>of users in less than a year will still operate,
>albeit perhaps at a different timescale, for the
>semantic web also. The semantic web is not just
>traditional ontology engineering with XML added
>as a kind of afterthought. It is part of the
>Web, and will be governed by Webbish laws of
>growth and distribution.
>
>Pat
>
>>
>>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 (04)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (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)
|