I would also suggest that the first 'actual system" "flight proven" is the
beginning, not the end of a technology maturing. That is the first early
adopter! (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Pat Hayes
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 (02)
>Pat (or anyone), (03)
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. (04)
Pat (05)
>
> 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 (06)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|