Re: [cuo-wg] Resolving Jim Hendler's Comments

["ajit kapoor" <ajitorsarah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have tried to respond to Jim's request-but had to deviate a little so I hope you will forgive me. my response are in the main body of the email response from Jim S in BOLD ITALIC

 

The current thrust of the paper seems to be softening to allow for technology evolution, Let's acknowledge that explicitly and we will be ready to move forward. I do not want to belabor the point of what is an "enterprise wide maturity" Every software has a limit and a failure point as it has never been 100% investigated-that  is highly improbable. Lets it be stated that current Semantic technologies are mostly based on W3C recommendations and few good extensions are evolving but are ready for limited scope deployment. The scope must be bounded and well defined. Or we can continue to do a application by application schema mapping and create a unmanageable situation and then say that we need to look at some new technologies!

 

Until we gain experience albeit by limited scope application we will continue to have this philosophical debate.

 

respectfully,

ajit 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6" <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:03 PM

Subject: [cuo-wg] Resolving Jim Hendler's Comments

> CDSI WG,
> 
> 1. Lots of good discussion, but let's refocus on resolving Jim 
Hendler's comments and updating the paper.  
> 
> 2. I would 
summarize Jim Hendler's comments as saying the paper doesn't give credit for the 
progress being made by the Semantic Web approach to semantic 
interoperability.  The attached paper is updated to give more credit.  
I believe he admits this approach ("URI-based reference mechanism coupled with 
the standard for KR")is not yet ready for enterprise-wide implementation.  
The paper is updated to list this approach as a 'Candidate Technical 
Solution.'  It rates the Semantic Web approach at Level-4.  Thoughts 
anyone?
> 
> 3. I changed the readiness scale in the paper to the 
better-know Technology Readiness Scale. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level.  Once again, this is far from a perfect model, but it is good 
enough to help explain how certain technologies are far from ready for 
implementation. 
> 
> 4. Below are excerpted and grouped comments, 
plus my shot at a response.  To respond, please cut only Jim Hendler's 
comments and add your response, preceeded by your last name.  Leave out Jim 
Hendler's comments you are not responding to.  
> 
> 5. At the 
bottom of this thread is the full text of the four messages sent by Jim Hendler, 
which may help put some of his comments in context. 
> 
> 6.  
Jim Hendler comments and Jim Schoening responses:
> 
> a. Hendler 
Comment: 1) You make the mistake, which is common and being pushed by a number 
of strong players, of assuming that only with some kind of common semantic model 
can data be integrated... 2) it buys way too heavily into the assumption that no 
integration can take place without complete (and consistent) semantic agreement 
- 3).we couldn't ever succeed with any kind of "everyone must agree" (standard 
upper >ontology) ... Ajit Kapoor's response: Add a summary of 
your Schoening comment in the beginning of the paper.
> 
> Schoening Response: The paper makes no such claim, but does list 
'common upper ontology' as one candidate technical solution. The paper first 
makes the point that current technology can't achieve interoperability across 
large numbers of domains, then suggests further R&D is needed, then lists 
'candidate' technologies, but without claiming which is best, or even feasible. 
The paper has now beed changed to list Semantic Web Approach as a candidate 
technical solution. 
> 
> b. Hendler Comment: ...buys way too 
heavily into the assumption that no integration can take place without complete 
(and consistent) semantic agreement.  ...that doesn't appear to be true in 
practice Ajit's Comment: Once you add a statement that 
says explicitly that its not the intent of this paper to find a holy grail 
then this issue goes away. 
> 
> Schoening 
Response: The paper does not make such a claim.  The paper says semantic 
interoprability can be achieved in some cases, but not across large enterprises 
with many domain.  If there is practice to demonstrate enterprise-wide data 
interoperability, comments should cite such practice.    
> 
> c. Hendler Comment: Ajit's Comment: Past success and 
failures are not a de-facto justification for future 
technologies 
> 
> Schoening Response: Such 
arguments were obviously wrong regarding the web, but that is not a technical 
justification to dismiss them this time.
> 
> d. Hendler 
Comment:Ajit's comments:The whole idea is to avoid local one of a 
kind mapping - we must make it clear that human judgement will not be 
machine automated
> 
> Schoening Response: Yes, one 
could do this for a narrow set of concepts, but not for all the concepts in all 
the domains within a large enterprises. 
> 
> e. Hendler 
Comment:  when I ask Google to find things, I don't care if it finds all 
and only the right thing -I want it to take me closer to a correct starting 
point for exploration, and I don't demand (or in fact want) 100% precision or 
recall. Ajit's Comment: Yes Google gives back lot of hits based on 
very limited contectual capabilities, and they are trying to enhance the 
algorithm to reduce the returned set, but that does not mean we stop using 
current search technology until it reaches some definition of maturity. A good 
analogy would be human endevors they are constantly evolving and are still being 
used concurrently.
> 
> Schoening Response: True, but 
Semantic Interoperability requires computers to understand search engine 
returns, which they can't, yet.
> 
> f. Hendler Comment: If you made 
this same argument by analogy for hypertext systems (lack of standards, 
disagreement in worlds views, different technologies) then you could clearly 
demonstrate that a world wide web of billions of documents linked to each other 
to be used in multiple contexts would be impossible (how would you find 
anything??) - 
> 
> Schoening Response: This analogy doesn't prove 
anything. The success of the Web is not a technical argument for the success of 
the Semantic Web. It is probably good justification for research funding, but is 
not a basis for claiming the technology can work, let alone is already 
working.  
> 
> g. Hendler Comment:...that [argument that] has 
been used by many critics from the traditional ontology space (where that 
assumption is made) to argue you can't do data integration at a large scale with 
the approaches we're exploring. 
> 
> Schoening Response: By saying 
"...we're exploreing," this comment admits the Semantic Web approach is not 
mature yet, which is the main point of the paper.  The paper now lists this 
approach as a candidate technical solution.
> 
> h. Hendler Comment: 
I've said this many times in many contexts - Tim Berners-Lee (who never listened 
to those skeptics who explained why the Web wouldn't work) and Eric Miller and I 
addressed this issue in some degree in the paper at [1] ad of course I've 
written and talked a lot about this. So before you all throw out the baby with 
the bathtub, I thought I would mention that there are contradicting views 
> 
> Schoening Response: Not a technical comment.  No response 
needed. 
> 
> i. Hendler Comment: you really missed a lot of the 
point of the Sem Web technologies and how they were designed precisely to 
provide the capabilities you say they don't. 
> 
> Schoening 
Response: I agree this is the intent of the Semantic Web, but this vision has 
yet to be achieved, so it is not ready for enterprise-wide implemention, which 
is the main point of the paper. Ajit's Comment: I do nont understand 
why you are so rigid on defining it to be enterprise ready-it is ready in a 
limited scale should suffice.
> 
> j. Hendler Comment: 
I certainly don't think they are the be-all and end-all, but they move us much 
further than you give them credit for -
> 
> Schoening 
Response:  Agreed. Paper now gives more credit to progess of Semantic Web 
approach. 
> 
> k. Hendler Comment: you completely miss the key 
aspect of these languages as opposed to previous AI languages, which is the URI 
basis - they are "webized" in a deep and important way - the linking of concepts 
(where ontologies can link to concepts in others) provides a mechanism you've 
largely missed. 
> 
> Schoening Response: Agreed. Paper has been 
updated to address this, but this does not impact the main point of the 
paper.
> 
> l. Hendler Comment:...they still haven't gotten it... 
The good news is the large players are beginning to get it (not only Oracle and 
IBM in DB systems, but MS and others are starting to use RDF DBs because they 
need the flexibility and the linking) 
> 
> Schoening 
Response:  This paper does not claim there is no progress toward the goal, 
just that technology has not yet achieved it. 
> 
> m. Hendler 
Comment:  the key is, like the web, learning to live with inconsistency and 
ambiguity, rather than claiming you can't do integration in its presence. 
> 
> Schoening Response: This paper does not claim we can't 'ever' 
achieve the goal, but rather we can't do it today with currently mature 
technology. Unless someone can show examples of Level 8 or 9 technological 
success, the primary assertion of the paper remains standing. 
> 
> 
n. Hendler Comment: There's obviously no way to prove that ?X can be done with 
current technology, what I'm arguing against is your equally unprovable 
contention that it can't. 
> 
> Schoening Response:  The first 
statement admits technology has not yet demonstrated it can achieve wide-scale 
semantic interoperability. When large enterprises decided to emplement the Web, 
it had fully taken off and there was lots of evidence it was working and scaling 
up. We don't have anything close to that yet with the Semantic Web. Yes, there 
is movement in that direction, but not enough for large enterprises to 
successfully implement as a solution for data interoperability. The second 
statement misquotes the paper. The paper doesn't claim it can't, just that it 
isn't ready for broad implementation. 
> 
> o. Hendler Comment: What 
I do believe is your arguments ignore significant aspects of current technology 
(esp. the Semantic Web work) that take it much further towards what you are 
claiming it cannot achieve than you seem to think. 
> 
> Schoening 
Response: Agreed.  Paper now gives credit. But this does not refute the 
paper's claim that the technology is not ready for broad implemenation, or in 
terms of the paper, the technology is not at Level 8 or 9. 
> 
> p. 
Hendler Comment: I buy your argument if you are saying current technology 
defined as DL reasoners manipulating OWL assertions, but that's not what the 
Semantic Web is all about, the URI-based reference mechanism coupled with the 
standard for KR and other aspects is aimed exactly at scalability. 
> 
> Schoening Response:  The problem is actually worse than Jim 
Hendler's example (DL, OWL, etc). DoD believes it can achieve enterpirse-wide 
data interoperability with XML and metadata. Jim Hendler, in this comment, 
basically agrees enterprise-wide semantic interoperability cannot be achieved 
with DL reasoners manipulating OWL assertions. The second statement claims the 
Semantic Web approach is 'aimed' at scalability, which basically admits they 
haven't matured this approach yet. The latest version of the paper lists this 
approach as a candidate solution and advocates further work in maturing all 
candidates. 
> 
> 
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Below is full text of Jim Hendler's 4 messages:  (Note:  A few 
non-relevant parts are snipped out.)
> 
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
>    
At 5:35 PM -0500 1/29/07, Jim Hendler wrote [to Jim Schoening]:
> 
>>James - Interesting paper, fwiw, I couldn't disagree 
more.   You 
>>make the mistake, which is common and being 
pushed by a number of 
>>strong players <<snip>>, of 
assuming that only with some kind of common 
>>semantic model can data 
be integrated - problem is the same argument 
>>you use as to why this 
is so (the scaling arguments) were very similar 
>>to the arguments 
made on why the WWW wouldn't work a decade or so ago.
>>Think of it 
this way - if I coudl create a set of local mappings across 
>>a wide 
array of linked (but not all linked) data sources then I could 
>>indeed do cross domain integration - not with full fidelity - but 
>>that's where your mistake lies - when I ask Google to find things, I 
>>don't care if it finds all and only the right thing - I want it to 
take 
>>me closer to a correct starting point for exploration, and I 
don't 
>>demand (or in fact want) 100%
>>precision or 
recall.   I don't have time for details, 
>>  
<<snip>>
>>  -JH
> 
> 
-------------------
> 
> At 10:33 AM -0500 1/30/07, Jim Hendler 
wrote [to SICoP]:
> 
> 
>>I guess I should mention here 
something I told the author separately - 
>>I don't agree with many of 
the conclusions of this paper, and think 
>>there are some flaws - I 
don't have time for a detailed response - but 
>>let me point out that 
if you made this same argument by analogy for 
>>hypertext systems 
(lack of standards, disagreement in worlds views, 
>>different 
technologies) then you could clearly demonstrate that a world 
>>wide 
web of billions of documents linked to each other to be used in 
>>multiple contexts would be impossible (how would you find 
anything??) - 
>>the analogy isn't perfect, and there are some valid 
points made in the 
>>paper - but it buys way too heavily into the 
assumption that no 
>>integration can take place without complete (and 
consistent) semantic 
>>agreement - and that's the part I cannot agree 
with, that doesn't 
>>appear to be true in practice, and that has been 
being used by many 
>>critics from the traditional ontology space 
(where that assumption is
>>made) to argue that you can't do data 
integration at a large scale with 
>>the approaches we're 
exploring.   I've said this many
>>times in many contexts - 
Tim Berners-Lee (who never listened to those 
>>skeptics who explained 
why the Web wouldn't work) and Eric Miller and I 
>>addressed this 
issue in some degree in the paper at [1] ad of course 
>>I've written 
and talked a lot about this. So before you all throw out 
>>the baby 
with the bathtub, I thought I would mention that there are 
>>contradicting views
>>   -Jim H
>>p.s. 
Actually, probably the best argument I made as to why we couldn't 
>>ever succeed with any kind of "everyone must agree" (standard 
upper
>>ontology) approach was in the original brief to the Director 
where I 
>>convinced DARPA to invest in the DAML program  - so 
this isn't 
>>something new, and those who've heard me at the Semantic 
Web in E-gov 
>>conferences have heard this 
argument.
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/swint
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> At 1:12 PM 
-0500 1/30/07, Jim Hendler wrote [to Jim Schoening]:
> 
> basically 
same thing basic argument as I put on the list, but a little stronger in my 
comments on upper ontology...  Sorry to weigh in so strong, but I think you 
really missed a lot of the point of the Sem Web technologies and how they were 
designed precisely to provide the capabilities you say they don't.  I 
certainly don't think they are the be-all and end-all, but they move us much 
further than you give them credit for - part of the problem is you completely 
miss the key aspect of these languages as opposed to previous AI languages, 
which is the URI basis - they are "webized" in a deep and important way - the 
linking of concepts (where ontologies can link to concepts in others) provides 
a
> mechanism you've largely missed.   I realize I 
> had 
the opportunity to weigh in to some of this stuff in SICOP, but I've had the 
debate with Leo and others ongoing for the past 6 years and they still haven't 
gotten it and I get tired of having the same arguments over and over.  The 
good news is the large players are beginning to get it (not only Oracle and IBM 
in DB systems, but MS and others are starting to use RDF DBs because they need 
the flexibility and the linking) so I've given up on arguing in closed circles - 
I still write articles and give plenty of talks
>  the key is, like 
the web, learning to live with inconsistency and ambiguity, rather than claiming 
you can't do integration in its presence.
> <<snip>>
> 
>  -JH
> -------------------------------
> 
> At 
12:08 AM 1/31/07, Jim Hendler wrote [to SICoP]:
> 
> The goal of 
that paper is to claim (and later papers have more details) that the current 
technology is exactly aimed at achieving interoperability at the semantic level 
at a Web Scale, which certainly subsumes large enterprises 
> with many 
domains.   I've published several 
> papers on this ranging from 
vision papers like the Scientific American article and the agents on the 
semantic web (google scholar for Semantic Web finds these) and more technical 
ones - our technical papers are at http://www.mindswap.org/papers.
> 
> There's obviously no way to prove that ?X can be done with current 
technology, what I'm arguing against is your equally unprovable contention that 
it can't.  What I do believe is your arguments ignore significant aspects 
of current technology (esp. the Semantic Web work) that take it much further 
towards what you are claiming it cannot achieve than you seem to think.  I 
don't have time to recap all the arguments here, but I think the bottom line is 
that I buy your argument if you were saying current technology defined as DL 
reasoners manipulating OWL assertions, but that's not what the Semantic Web is 
all about, and the URI-based reference mechanism coupled with the standard for 
KR and other aspects is aimed exactly at scalability.
> 
> I don't 
have time for a long email discussion on this right now, I simpl wanted to 
remind the forum that there is argument with your contention, and that not 
everyone agrees (both of which are self evident arguments). 
> I leave it 
to the readers of your paper to think about these issues - that's 
all.
>  -Jim H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

> 
> 
_________________________________________________________________
> 
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
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)