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@[]>
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

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


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC