A simple exercise (was RE : philosophy of SWBPD (was Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question)

Re,

Sorry but i can't resist :

	Reacting to my own mail i think that as at least Jim (i hope)
believe that there is at least two distinct context : SWC and OEC where
we can "think" about the buildind ontology process, a good exercice
could be to have an Ontology, describing such things. For example are
SWC and OEC two Context subclasses ? is SWC a subclass of OEC or does it
exist a property "part-of"with SWC-partOf-OEC, is a SW application a
subclass of WebApplication which is a subclass of Application, does it
exist a boolean (functional?)property "has-reasoning-task" with a
(hasValue=True) ? etc...


	this is tipically the kind of problem, which has strongly to
deal with semantic, that we want to be able to 
	describe with languages like OWL,

	Perhaps that a guideline with an introduction including an
Ontology which can clearly explain the scope of the document
	and the way we see the overall subject could be a great way to
promote SW techniques and to show that it's very powerful and that we
really know the topics we are talking about. It would be a sort of
Meta-process ?

So, appart the fact to know if it is a useful exercise, do you think
that we are able to do it ?

thanks 

Best regards

Marco NANNI 

>  -----Message d'origine-----
> De : 	NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP  
> Envoye :	jeudi 1 avril 2004 10:29
> A :	'Jim Hendler'; SWBPD
> Objet :	RE: philosophy of SWBPD (was Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] :
> a   practical question)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> Jim Hendler wrotes
> 
> >In case anyone hasn't figured it out by now - I THINK IT SHOULD BE 
> >OUT OF SCOPE FOR THIS TASK FORCE TO WRITE ONTOLOGY ENGINEERING 
> >DOCUMENTS HAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE SEMANTIC WEB as part of this 
> >Working Group.  If you'd like me to state it clearer, let me know 
> > what to addd
> 
> Do i understand well what you want to say :
> 	You think that, according to the formal definition of the term
> "Ontology", building an ontology doesn't automatically mean that you
> are in the SW context ? 
> 	
> 	If it is what you mean i completely agree with that because  i
> think that , like Mr LAPALICE, we have been building Ontology since,
> as you say, 50 years without knowing it
> 
> But you also write :
> 
> > They ARE central to the design of OWL, in the sense that OWL is 
> > specifically FOR the Web, and thus had to have a few things that 
> > typical KR/O languages lack.
> 
> 
> Do I have to understand that what i have written above is false if I
> use OWL (RDFS ?)? In other word if i use OWL/RDFS i'm automatically in
> the SW context (SWC) ? i think i can agree with that, but let me ask a
> more precise question :
> 
> 			- Do you think that a use case (i don't want to
> use the word application) where somebody uses OWL ontologies without
> REASONING TASKS (classification, individuals retrieval, etc...)is
> still a SW use case ?
> 
> 			- if yes :
> 				this raises a few  very correlated new
> questions :
> 				- can we make a clear distinction
> between an OWL ontology built outside the context of SWC and an OWL
> ontology in the SWC ?
> 				- Are we able to define two distinct
> guidelines, both for OWL but
> 						- one for the more
> general OEC (which is clearly not our objective)
> 						- one for the specific
> SWC ?
> 				- In other word, (it's always the same
> question but more precise i think) : what are the differences between
> SWC and OEC ?
> 					
> 			- if not :
> 				to what context does it belong ? the
> general Ontology engineering context (OEC) i suppose ? And in this
> case do you think that these contexts have such a little intersection
> in  terms of guidelines that there is no need for us to explore in
> details the OEC ?
> 			For me the direct consequence of this negative
> response is that the very "heavy" criteria (the only one perhaps ) to
> definitively distinguish the 2 contexts is  the fact we need/use or
> not some reasoning tasks. 
> 
> Don't you think that by accepting this point of view, which is perhaps
> too much restrictive, we could have a simple "bodyguard" or (meta)
> guideline or whatever you want which could say to us :
> 
> 		All the advices, guidelines,...we are going to write
> MUST be thought keeping this following final objective in the mind :
> our outputs MUST help people to build, in a given context, the best
> (distributed) architecture (i.e ontologies could be only a - very
> important - part of it) to allow some very specific reasoning tasks.
> 
> I'm afraid that taking this point of view means that we have to kwow
> for the overall SWA lifecycle all the points which can have a real
> impact in REASONING capabilities. It's a hard work but perhaps that it
> is easier than the problem to say if this point or this point has to
> deal with OEC or SWC ?
> 
> 
> You will have understood that, my personal point of view is to make
> such simplification in our approach. Not perhaps this one exactly
> which is, i must admit, very very restrictive (and perhaps false ?
> glurps!!!) but which has the merit to define precise criterias to
> select the point to study.
> 
> Thank you very much
> 
> best regards
> 
> Marco NANNI 
> 
> 
> 
>