I think we agree on the most important issues.
JFS>> As I've said many times, the SemWeb is too provincial. Other
>> people have said that it suffers from a Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
>> They've carved out a little niche and ignored what goes on in
>> all the hardware and software that pump out web pages.
EB> That is all true. But at the same time, they are trying to do "the
> hard stuff", and that is something
I agree, and I hope that all parties can reach a consensus on these issues.
But the most important point I wanted to get across is the ending:
JFS>> Bottom line: The semantics of the Web is intimately connected
>> with the semantics of every system connected to the Web. You
>> can't have a web-only semantics or a web-only science.
> But the converse is not true. The semantics of systems connected to
> the Web is not necessarily intimately connected to the "semantics of
> the Web"; many looser couplings are possible.
I agree that special purpose systems may agree with general-purpose
ontologies on broad issues, but they may have unique details that are
not shared or sharable.
But I'm hopeful that some convergence for on techniques that can support
better interoperability can be
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx