John, (01)
I think you have hit the nail on the head there. (02)
Mike (03)
On 08/11/2010 14:38, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Alex and Mike,
>
> AS:
>> as XML, RDF are data models and ways for information coding,
>> it is not for users but for programmers.
>> XML is accepted by programmers for their needs.
>> Internal structure of SW is a programmers deal.
> You're preaching to the choir, but you're missing the main point.
> The fundamental point I have been emphasizing again and again is
>
> *INTEGRATION*
>
> Everybody works in their own little box without considering what's
> outside their boxes or inside anybody else's boxes.
>
> At a recent conference, one of the speakers emphasized the point
> that businesses have groups working on business process, other
> groups working on business rules, and still other groups working on
> business information. And many of those groups are isolated from
> one another. But it's all *one business*.
>
> Everything is interconnected with everything else, and suboptimizing
> one function or process or program or system while ignoring the others
> is a recipe for disaster.
>
> Every time I say that, the Semantic Web people jump up and down and say
>
> *Oh, but we are so much bigger than everybody else!*
>
> That is why I call the SemWebbers *provincial*. They think they are
> the world, but they are more like the telephone or the automobile.
> They are an important part of the *infrastructure*, but they are
> just *part* of the support structure -- *never* the ultimate goal.
>
> In the bad old days, AT&T thought they were the world, and they
> gave pretty good service for their part. But the telephone industry
> skyrocketed in function and service *after* AT&T was broken up.
>
> The best thing that could happen to the SemWeb is to break it up.
> The greatest period of innovation for the WWW occurred *before*
> the W3C was founded. Standards are necessary, but nobody is wise
> enough to know what to standardize until some technologies emerge
> as de facto standards.
>
> Please reread the following slides, especially the first two
> sections (slides 3 to 24):
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/iss
>
> AS:
>> Even for knowledge interchange it may be better to have CNL.
>> Do we need a standard for CNL?
> I would say controlled NLs are useful, but every application will
> have different needs, different vocabularies, and different dialects.
> I would focus on standardizing the logic, independent of whatever
> notations or tools are used to generate or process it.
>
> See slides 25 to 55 of iss.pdf.
>
> MB:
>> Surely there is a distinction to be made between what is modeled
>> and what it is modeled in. Changing the syntax or the presentation
>> is not the same as changing the content of the model, and in the end
>> a model is either a model of something in the problem domain or
>> a model of a (usually proposed) solution.
> I agree.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> (04)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|