If you are interested in what motivates my questions and interest, you
can visit our web site www.artifact-software.com and look at the SimOps
section.
We are trying to answer some of these questions about process units in
petrochemical and other plants through static data presentations. (01)
I can see the potential power of ontology if it can be applied to this
in a way that is easy to use.
In the case of an emergency or even a scheduled shutdown, having answers
to these questions quickly can save lives or at a minimum, reduce costly
downtime. (02)
Ron (03)
Christopher Spottiswoode wrote:
> Ron, your requirement statement is wonderful in its brevity and in its
> challenge! Ed's assessments of major present players was also
> admirable, for its very relevant deep and wise perspectives, but I can
> sense your frustration.
>
> If my "MACK basics" series of posts to this list seems to be
> forgetting to do so, please remind me to return to your challenge once
> I have built up the bigger MACK picture a bit further. Then I will
> show how on the forthcoming "DemocraticWeb" each one of your use cases
> might play out in a supported yet natural way (even if I have to add
> many qualifications to your idea of "a base ontology that describes a
> fair amount of the universe.")
>
> For that, I first need to expand a lot more on issues like what MACK
> brings to modularity and scalability at Internet scales. For now,
> meanwhile, I just remind or point out that the generic function of the
> MACK-conformant AOS for MACK-conformant applications or functionality
> is to be the basis for a universal "market vehicle" or marketplace.
>
> Thank you, in great anticipation too!
> Christopher
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re: ANN:
> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
>
>
>
>> I am not sure about the value of picking winners and losers.
>>
>> I think that too much focus is on words and not enough on software
>> engineering.
>>
>> What I want are better tools for building applications that are
>> based on
>> the concepts behind the semantic web.
>> I would be happy if there were applications that actually could
>> allow a
>> SME to easily describe the relationships between things and tools
>> that
>> would let application developers build user friendly applications
>> that
>> could draw reasonable conclusions based on the relationships.
>>
>> "What will happen if we turn off valve 298 in unit B?" What are the
>> procedural steps required to verify that valve 298 can be closed
>> safely?"
>>
>> "What is the best insurance product that we have for a business
>> owner
>> with a wife and 2 kids in college?" What is the risk assessment for
>> this
>> farm? What would be the premium? What information is missing to
>> complete
>> this risk assessment?"
>>
>> I would like a tool that will make it easy to build simulations and
>> serious games based on simple scenarios added to a base ontology
>> that
>> describes a fair amount of the universe.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Software Engineering is required if you actually want anything
>>>> functional.
>>>> Otherwise all you get is words which is what we mostly have now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Absolutely. But there is a difference between "heavy applications"
>>> with
>>> "complex tools", that actually represent the results of design and
>>> careful engineering, and hacking something with a Python workbench
>>> and
>>> an RDB in a few hours. If the market wants cheap knockoffs, they
>>> get
>>> what they pay for.
>>>
>>> IMO, the reason for the lack of success in the noble endeavour that
>>> is
>>> the Semantic Web is the competing noble endeavours Google and
>>> Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> They are all about finding the information you need.
>>>
>>> The Semantic Web idea is that experts annotate documents to put
>>> their
>>> content in a perspective of the consensus knowledge in an area.
>>> And if
>>> what you are looking for is reliable content in any academic
>>> discipline,
>>> this is the (long) established view of how to get it. The only
>>> difference is that we are trying to automate the knowledge
>>> association
>>> and selection process. The problem with the Semantic Web is that
>>> we
>>> haven't yet made it easy for the experts to do the annotation, and
>>> there
>>> is no existing critical mass of "consensus ontologies" that defines
>>> the
>>> perspectives the experts want to refer to. The entry cost of doing
>>> it
>>> this way is high.
>>>
>>> The Google idea is that software can statistically annotate
>>> documents
>>> according to what it actually sees in them. The "semantics" of the
>>> resulting linkages is "emergent", not "designed in". This
>>> technique
>>> makes a lot more information accessible, because it doesn't require
>>> the
>>> experts and the established views. But it assumes that in academic
>>> disciplines what is actually available will be dominated by the
>>> works of
>>> experts and by the established views. The actual statistical
>>> performance does not support this. Many or most of the links are
>>> not
>>> very reliable, because the published information is dominated by
>>> students, marketers, bloggers, etc., only some of whom really are
>>> experts. Google is very effective at indexing information of all
>>> kinds,
>>> and the cost for everyone but the Google organization is
>>> non-existent,
>>> but for that reason, there is a definite caveat emptor.
>>>
>>> The Wikipedia idea is that a lot of basic knowledge can be gathered
>>> in a
>>> theoretically expert reference that is maintained by a community,
>>> and
>>> the community will be dominated by the consensus knowledge. And
>>> that
>>> has proved to be largely true. At the same time, Wikipedia has
>>> "thought
>>> police" whose duty is to eliminate articles they see as
>>> self-serving or
>>> lacking a broad community of interest and expertise. Quality has a
>>> social and intellectual price.
>>>
>>> Which of these is the right way? All of them. Which will succeed?
>>> Google and Wikipedia already have established themselves, but
>>> Wikipedia
>>> will never be as broad as some would want, and Google will never be
>>> as
>>> reliable. And OBTW, _all_ of these required some serious
>>> engineering
>>> and some very heavy software systems design. Google, like Rome,
>>> was not
>>> built in a day.
>>>
>>> But the Semantic Web is suffering from another malady --
>>> infighting.
>>> The Semantic Web is currently an "anti-social network". Ontology
>>> development and document annotation is largely funded by
>>> government-provided research money, and too much effort is being
>>> spent
>>> on directing the flow of the water to the favorite mill and too
>>> little
>>> on grinding the grain. If we really want the Semantic Web to
>>> succeed,
>>> we have to declare some winners and some losers and get on with the
>>> work. (See disclaimer below. ;-))
>>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|