Re: [OEP,ALL] Potential topics for OEP notes

Chris Welty wrote:
>I had no intention to be inflammatory.  I find the best way to draw people 
>in is to take the blame.  We (note that the first person plural INCLUDES 
>the speaker) have created an incredible amount of confusion by getting a 
>lot of different terms mixed up.  The only "philosophy" here is the one I 
>propose we adopt, which is to "admit it" - i.e. admit this is very 
>confusing, and do our best to explain it.  Many people won't care - and so 
>won't read any such note.  For those that do, I think something like this 
>will help them considerably.

Again, I see nothing wrong with such a note, I was just worried about how
some in SW-land might react to how you broached the subject.  Hopefully, my
worry is unfounded and my meta-reaction will be the only noise created on
the subject.  

>Regarding semantic integration, I suspect you will be in the minority.  In 
>the business world, everyone is looking to SW as a way to address semantic 
>integration.  I think its our job to set the proper expectations, or we 
>will go down in flames.  This is very important, in my opinion,more so 
>than the specifc pattern notes.

My only comment was that it didn't belong in OEP*, not that it wasn't a
reasonable WG task or that it wasn't important.  I didn't volunteer to
help with the task because I didn't think I would bring much to it.
I agree about setting proper expectations wrt SW, and I have spent
considerable time explaining to people in govt. what is really there.
I didn't glean from your previous description that the goal for this 
task was to clarify things in order to set realistic expectations.  Given 
that, perhaps I could contribute to it as well. An outline would probably 
help verify this.


* The OEP Task Force entry in the wg page has no description.  Perhaps
we (OEP TF) should also give ourselves a task to create one?

-Evan