W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

RE: in defense of standards

From: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:41:51 -0400
Message-ID: <D3C8F903E7CC024C9DA6D900A60725D9025F34EB@DLTKVMX1.ads.deltek.com>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <public-sw-meaning@w3.org>

> 
From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@isr.umd.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:43 PM
> To: Sandro Hawke
> 
> On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 10:18 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>  
> > and you're still going to build an open systems, I think you're
> > just arguing for an undocumented protocol.
> 
> Or evolved ones. Or these aren't "protocols" in the networky sense.

Ok.  I'm willing to join the bands of the freedom-loving-formalists, 
but I have some questions.  Please forgive me here, I am clearly the 
least experienced person on this list, but I don't know where you are 
getting this dispute protocol from.  I don't remember reading anything 
in the proposed standards about rdf:dispute or owl:disagreement.  Is 
there such a thing?  I would like to be able to use your dispute protocol 
and to program my agents to use it.  How best to do this? What is the 
proper protocol for publishing a dispute in RDF?  I used to work with 
ACH, the Automated Clearing House system for interbank transfers.  They 
had a dispute protocol, very well worked out, with several layers of 
automated resolution procedures before kicking the problem out for human 
intervention.  Where in the current standards is our dispute protocol 
spelled out?

What I see is that some internally consistent RDF is put on one web site.  
Some more internally consistent RDF is put out on another web site.  Now 
if I load them both, I get an RDF graph that is inconsistent.  How does 
this become a dispute?  rather than nothing?  or garbage?

For that matter, how do I know what was asserted? in order to know 
what to dispute?  How do I program my sw-agent to distinguish between 
some RDF that is put on a web site as a test?  or as a prototype?  versus
the RDF that really matters.  How can I tell when some RDF is published 
as a comment, and when it is a claim?

Could this be the protocol0, the naive protocol that Sandro and Tim 
are saying is missing?  Then even as a freedom loving formalist, who would 
rather die than have my freedom of sw-speech curtailed, I would also have 
to say, I don't see any harm in coming up with such a protocol0, sort of 
a "Quick Start Guide to Saying Things in RDF", that explained at the very 
least, how to put some RDF on my web site and make it known that - "I mean 
this.  This is something I'm asserting.  This is something that is 
disputable."

John Black
http://kashori.com
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 09:47:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT