Cory, (01)
This model starts with the sound concept (Level-1) and ends with the
technology being 'ready' for implementation. Some organizations fund research,
others pilot emerging technology, but most wait until a technology is ready
before rolling it out across their entire enterprise. It's true, the
technology will further mature, just as a 17 year old driver, who is ready to
drive, will further mature, but that's not point of the model or the paper. (02)
One problem the paper hopes to address is that some large organizations
(DoD for one) believe the Semantic Web approach is ready for implementation and
can achieve data interoperability (including at the semantic level) across
large numbers of domains, subdomains, and Communities of Interest. Such
domains are forming, but having minimal luck creating data models and
ontologies, and with virtually no interoperablity amongst them. DoD recently
realized this is not working, but they think they implemented it wrong. They
need to understand current technology (ready for implementation) can't achieve
data interoperability across large numbers of domains. (03)
It's a secondary issue as to what might work, if anything, but the
first issue is whether organizations like DoD should continue trying to
implement technology that is not anywhere near being ready to implement. When
DoD bought into the Internet, it had already taken off and proven its value,
scalability, and readiness for broad-scale implementation. I suggest the
Semantic Web approach to data interoperability may be working on a small scale,
but hasn't shown it can scale. Maybe this will come, but its not here now, and
IMHO DoD should not assume they can implement it. (04)
Jim Schoeing (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:01 AM
To: common upper ontology working group; Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Subject: RE: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution (06)
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! (07)
-----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 (08)
>Pat (or anyone), (09)
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. (010)
Pat (011)
>
> 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 (012)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|