ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML

To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: David Price <dprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:54:35 +0000
Message-id: <4F53822B.9020100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 3/4/2012 6:57 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> David,
>
> When I said "everything and anything", I meant everything and anything.
> The WWW is an important part of everything.  So is mainstream IT.
> And so are the yet undiscovered inventions that will be coming along
> during the 21st century, the 22nd century, etc.
>
> JFS
>>> As I've said before, the *worst* feature of the Semantic Web
>>> is the word 'Web'.  What we need are Semantic *Systems* that
>>> accommodate everything and anything.
> DP
>> An argument for an alternative view:
>>
>> Given the ubiquity of the Internet/HTTP as a platform for communication
>> everywhere on the planet and beyond, it makes perfect sense to build
>> semantic technologies aimed at that platform. It's easy to argue that
>> doing so is likely to have the broadest impact in the shortest time.
> I strongly agree.  So the universal semantics -- i.e., what people
> think and say and do -- should be tailored for the WWW.  It should
> also be tailored for every other technology that anybody uses.    (01)

No problem with that. However, I am suggesting that the quickest way for 
semantics/ontology to have the broadest impact is to build for the Web 
first. My point is about things taking decades, which is why I mentioned 
the Semantic Web activity as having energized far more people in the 
past 10 years than anything else. Organizations also get a lot for free 
by starting with a Web-based approach (e.g. universal identifiers with a 
well-understood approach they already understand).    (02)

>
> But those are low-level optimizations that change with every change
> to every technology.  What we need are systematic ways of tailoring
> the semantics for everything and anything -- that includes the current
> WWW, next year's WWW, and the WWW of 2020, 2040... and everything
> else that may come along.
>
> DP
>> The W3C Semantic Web activity is the main reason ontology and
>> semantics  are growing in interest at all.
> If you believe that, I can get you a great deal on a bridge
> between Manhattan and Brooklyn.    (03)

Do a small experiment - Walk into IT depts in companies in agri, bio, 
pharma, defense, mfg, and oil and gas and ask people if they've heard of 
'ontology' or 'semantics' - most will say no. Of those that answer yes, 
ask them if they have any interest in that subject in their company - 
again, most will say no. Of those that answer yes, ask them why, what 
they know about the topic, etc. and 90+ percent will say RDF/OWL or 
Semantic Web (or maybe Linked Data). Mention CL - nothing, FOL - 
nothing, HOL - nothing, CG - nothing, LISP - never no way, AI - you must 
be joking, etc.    (04)

I'm just  reporting experiences from the field and what I see is that 
even if in the end organizations choose something else, the Semantic Web 
activity/OWL is what got them interested and why they were looking into 
semantics/ontology at all.  Perhaps the field you walk is very different 
from mine (i.e. largely academic/research or from the semantic/ontology 
community looking out).    (05)

>
> Today, Google, Bing (Microsoft), and Yahoo! know a lot more about
> the WWW than any member of the W3C committee back in 1998.  And
> one thing they agreed is that RDF/XML and OWL are irrelevant for
> their purposes.  I'll bet on Google before I bet on the W3C.    (06)

Although you make this point regularly, their purposes have so little to 
do with the use cases for strong ontologies and semantics that the point 
is irrelevant. WWW search and semantics/ontology are not the same thing. 
Few people in industry think Google/Bing/Yahoo have any interest in 
helping them with their semantics - but good luck with your bet.    (07)

>
> Summary:  Two things are certain:  (1) technology is always
> changing, and (2) human nature remains the same.  If you want
> to build semantic systems that can last, you must focus on what
> people think, do, and say.  Optimizing your semantics for a
> particular technology is a recipe for obsolescence.    (08)

Alternative summary: 1) IT is moving more and more towards a set of 
competing platforms. Apple, for example, certainly completely disagrees 
with your assessment. 2) Of the available set of candidate platforms, 
the Internet/Web will be the most long-lived and have the broadest 
impact so chosing that gets the biggest bang for the proverbial buck.    (09)

Cheers,
David    (010)

>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>    (011)


-- 
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606    (012)




_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (013)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>