>/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/phayesReceived on Friday, 10 October 2003 13:39:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:11 GMT