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

Re: consensus and consistency

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:39:32 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f27bbac97281b9c@[10.0.100.25]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

>/me q+ to suggest that consensus is valuable almost intrinsically, and
>to note that even informally specified ontologies are useful in order to
>encourage people to use terms in consensus (related to, but less formal,
>than consistency) with lots of other people. Let us look at formally
>specified ontologies as a specialization that allows us to delegate
>certain computations (such as consistency) to the machine.

Agreed. Very nicely put.  One tiny comment: the idea of an SW *agent* 
is often understood to extend 'machine' in ways that some folk might 
not have previously thought about. That said, however, what this 
suggests to me is that we would make a lot more progress if we 
focused on what effects anything we might say could have on how these 
machines are expected to behave.

>I guess I'll mail it rather than (a) interrupting the
>conversation or (b) losing the thought.
>
>q+ in the sense of
>http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

?? So, any number of q's? What does THAT mean? Never mind....

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 13:39:48 GMT

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