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

["ajit kapoor" <ajitorsarah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Below is a excerpt from RAND Corp report to European Commision. Its very approprpriate to our discussion and a further justification to my earlier comments. It emphasizes the role of Government in bringing disruptive technologies.

 

Ajit Kapoor

 

"This report makes the recommendations that governments should play a role where a

societal benefit is expected, even if the market is not willing to pay for it. This role could

be via: supporting pre-competitive research on the technology and its implementation and

impact; regulating to reduce misuse and for certification; stimulation of standardisation

and certification activities and awareness raising. Recognising that the successful and secure

implementation of disruptive technologies requires the involvement of all stakeholders,

policy makers should consider all likely market players, not just those with current market

presence. Policy makers could define critical infrastructures and required minimum levels

of operation, to better understand when specific regulatory or financial incentives are

required to ensure their protection. In the context of the recently released strategy for a

Secure Information Society: ?Dialogue, Partnership and Empowerment? and the i2010

goals. We make recommendations to: inform all sectors at all levels about the security"

----- 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) ... 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 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: The ... 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. 
> 
> 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:Think of it this way - if I could 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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)