Jim, Pat & All: (01)
I'd like to suggest the approach Pat has described is working and its
working everywhere, In fact, you'll find some very interesting work on
this site: http://rhizomik.net/livingsw/ in which the research shows the
semantic web behaves like a living system. (02)
I've also suggested an alternative approach here: (03)
http://colab.cim3.net/forum//cuo-wg/2007-02/msg00012.html (04)
to assessing maturity which I believe is consistent with what you, Pat,
are saying about "letting loose a method of social interaction." (05)
Pat, any thoughts ? (06)
However, Jim, to assess maturity using this approach we'd have to better
understand how you're technical maturity scale relates maturity and
scaleability. (07)
I believe posing and examining alternatives to your maturity scale is
important and deserves debate. Thomas Kuhn, in the Structure of
Scientific Revolutions says that scientists will hold onto a failing
theory until an alternative is posed and compared. (08)
I'm not sure why you'd want to perpetuate a *not so good* maturity
model, but maybe that says something about the audience for the paper. (09)
--
Best wishes, (010)
Rick (011)
email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
cell: 703-201-9129 (012)
Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 wrote:
> Pat,
> I agree this is not the best model, but for our purposes, I suggest it
>is good enough. Perhaps you (or someone) could cite some recent demonstrations
>and whether they were in a laboratory, relevant, or operational environment.
>
> I'd also be in favor of doing a version of this model for semantic
>interoperability.
>
> I'm guessing the Semantic Web approach you describe works well in a
>small scale or a laboratory environment, but that there is no evidence (yet)
>it could scale up. If so, I believe further work should be funded to advance
>this approach.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:09 PM
> To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
> Cc: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution
>
>
>>Pat (or anyone),
>
>
> 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.
>
> Pat
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|