W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

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

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:52:49 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF042667F1@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org>
I do not mean to say or suggest that these are the *only* possibilities,
just two that came to mind.
 
M.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Hendler
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:56 PM
To: Uschold, Michael F; Christopher Welty; Jeremy Carroll
Cc: Bernard Vatant; Ian Horrocks; SWBPD; public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: philosophy of SWBPD (was Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a
practical question)
 
At 14:45 -0800 3/29/04, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
I look forward to the empircal result of this WG: how much of the time
can we identify criteria and get agreement that suggests certain
modeling decisions do indeed have clear advantages over others. And, how
much of the time will we agree that alternate approaches have pros and
cons, rather than one being clearly superior.
 
Mike
 
Hmm, looking over my answers to Mike's most recent postings, I gotta ask
-- can those be the only options :->
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:40 AM
To: Uschold, Michael F; Christopher Welty; Jeremy Carroll
Cc: Bernard Vatant; Ian Horrocks; SWBPD; public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: philosophy of SWBPD (was Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a
practical question)
 
At 23:33 -0800 3/24/04, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
Jim makes a good point, and it is most valid in those cases when
alternate approaches will work well. But that is not always the case,
and there are many gray areas. When there ARE clear arguments for or
against a given modeling choice, then I believe it IS the role of this
group to identify commonly arising BAD ways to model things and
recommend to avoid them, as well as to recommend GOOD ways to do certain
kinds of things.   We should avoid taking positions UNLESS there are
clear arguments one way or the other, and as Jim says, indicate the
consequences of decisions, so users can choose what will work best in
their particular circumstances.
 
MIke
 
 
 
while I don't disagree, let me be clear -- it is rarely the case that
one thing is right and one is wrong in the capital letter sense that
Mike uses GOOD and BAD -- I don't mind educating in the few cases there
may be, but I'm gonna be awfully hard to convince that somehow the way
we built closed-world, generall small ontologies in the traditional AI
systems is going to be the noly GOOD way to build them on the Semantic
Web -- in fact, in teaching SW to my students, I'm learning new lessons
all the time that counter how I've been teaching things in my AI courses
for the last 28 years
 -JH
--
Professor James Hendler
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler 
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies       301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.      301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742      240-277-3388 (Cell)
 
 
 
-- 
Professor James Hendler
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler 
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies       301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.      301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742      240-277-3388 (Cell)
   
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 20:59:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 29 March 2004 20:59:42 EST