Dave, Ed, William, Leo, Kingsley, John B, et al., (01)
We have a many points of agreement, and most of the debates are
about details of secondary importance. (02)
Following is a summary of the main issues: (03)
1. The ultimate source of meaning is the real world and the people
who communicate about it -- among themselves and with IT systems. (04)
2. The AI formalisms have never been popular with mainstream IT,
and newer versions based on an uglier syntax are no better. (05)
3. But diagrams of various kinds have been popular with mainstream IT
since the punched card days. (06)
4. Some version of logic is necessary to define and relate the
semantics of the various diagrams and notations to each other
and to the languages people read, write, and speak. (07)
5. Tim B-L's emphasis on diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability
is necessary to support legacy systems, current mainstream IT, and
whatever innovations anybody may develop in the future. (08)
6. Unless we can provide tools, techniques, and interfaces that IT
developers can use with their current systems, no amount preaching
will convince them that logic and ontology are useful. (09)
My main complaint about the Semantic Web is that it lost sight of these
issues while trying to enforce compliance with secondary details. Until
we address the main issues, it's pointless to standardize the details
of notations that nobody will adopt. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|