Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth (Tim B-L's vision for the SW in 2000)

[William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 7/10/2012 1:58 AM, Chris Mungall wrote:
> Boris Motik developed HermiT, which I would consider a very useful application.


I want to emphasize that my "rants" are not against DLs.  I also
apologize for calling the following paper a "disease":

http://dip.semanticweb.org/documents/Boris-Motik-On-the-Properties-of-Metamodeling-in-OWL.pdf

My initial impression was caused by a revulsion to its underlying
assumptions.  But I admit that it's not a bad paper of its kind.

John, I ask if you have anything further to say about these "underlying assumptions" .  They may go much deeper than the assumption that logics used by the semantic web should be decidable, to the *reasons* someone would have such a belief, i.e., the purpose of these logics and their languages. 

While thinking that decidability is essential might not *itself* be justly called a "disease", only wrong, there may also be a more deep rooted notion about the relationship between people and machines that would lead to thinking decidability was important, and this fundamental notion that may be finding itself in conflict with what is most practical. 

This is the other side of leaving the SW to the engineers -- being very explicit about which of one's most fundamental beliefs are in play in the work.  This explicitness is a practice that is very little followed, and when not followed, may cover some unsavory views.  

JFS
>> It makes me angry that [the DL theoreticians] have been destroying
>> what might have been a very useful development, if they had left
>> the SW to the engineers.

Please look at the DAML proposal in February 2000 with Tim Berners-Lee
as the principal investigator:

    http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/DevelopmentProposal

Note that it explicitly states:

    Semantic Web = Unifying logic for classical logic

It also mentions higher order, first order, and propositional logic.
But it *never* mentions the dreaded word 'decidability'.

Tim B-L demonstrated his engineering credentials in developing the WWW.
The 2000 DAML proposal includes an early version of the layer cake,
which was more integrated and richer than the more widely circulated
layer cake of 2001 or the watered-down version today.

If Tim B-L had been able to continue the DAML project along the lines
described in that report, the SW might have become a truly integrated
logic-based system -- much more powerful than PowerLoom.

Instead, the "Decidability Thought Police" hijacked the SW.  They tell
people that OWL is the successor to DAML + OIL.  But that is false.
The combination of RDF(S) + OWL + SPARQL is a tiny fragment of
what Tim B-L and his colleagues proposed for DAML in 2000.

Please read that report and think of what might have been.

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

-- 
William Frank

413/376-8167

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)