W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: OEP and SE

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:43:38 -0500
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Cc: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, welty@us.ibm.com, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, pan@cs.man.ac.uk
Message-ID: <OFE60221E7.7FEF83D3-ON80256F56.0070AE96-85256F56.0071124E@uk.ibm.com>





Evan

You may well have a point here, but demarcation is, nevertheless,
important. If you have any thoughts on additional words for the SE terms of
reference, they would indeed be appreciated.

Jeff and I have discussed the remit of the proposed task force on a number
of occasions now and we are both keen to make this a distinct and
significant contribution to the Working Group. Furthermore, I hope that the
very establishment of such a task force will send a strong and clear signal
out the wider IT industry. If this is tainted with even the slightest
controversy I fear that minor issues could be amplified out of all
proportion by those who do not share our enthusiasm for the Semantic Web.
So I am obviously keen to get things right early on.

Perhaps I might suggest the following change to the SE ToR as a starting
point:

To investigate potential synergies between the Semantic Web and domains
more traditionally associated with Software Engineering. This is to enable
the promotion and cross-pollination of both new and established ideas
between the two communities, potentially relating to:
o     Use cases
o     THE APPLICATION of models, patterns and frameworks
o     Methods and tools
o     Underpinning technologies
o     Best practice

Kind regards

Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328


                                                                           
             ewallace@cme.nist                                             
             .gov                                                          
                                                                        To 
             23/11/2004 14:40          dlm@ksl.stanford.edu,               
                                       welty@us.ibm.com,                   
                                       schreiber@cs.vu.nl,                 
                                       public-swbp-wg@w3.org,              
                                       pan@cs.man.ac.uk                    
                                                                        cc 
                                       Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB            
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: OEP and SE                      
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Jeff Pan wrote:
>I would like to discuss with you the relationship between the OEP  TF and
the
>proposed SE TF.
>
>As mentioned in [1], the distinction between the two TFs is clear, i.e.,
OEP
>is more about engineering and patterns of ontologies, while SE is more
about
>the use of ontologies in software architecture and lifecycles. The SE TF
terms
>of reference [2] explicitly states that the scopes of the two TFs are
disjoint.> >
>There are some potential connections between the two TFs. For instance,
>"Mapping from UML to OWL" is a suggested topic in OEP TF [3], the results
>from which could be applied in topics in SE TF, such as "Ontology-Driven
>Software Engineering".

I don't really believe that there is a clean demarcation line between the
scopes of these two Task Forces.  For each item of work we may choose a
single home, but that choice sometimes will be arbitrary.  The Semantic
Integration note is a case in point.

This is not a problem in my view.  As long as we don't have turf battles or
contradictory notes.  Its better to spend time writing notes than writing
careful scope descriptions.  (Now, if I could just find some time to write
either!)

-Evan
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:44:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:40 UTC