W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [SE] Ontology Driven Architecture Note

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:44:59 -0500
Message-Id: <p0623092cbf9e6d46dc87@[172.31.0.192]>
To: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>, danbri@w3.org
Cc: "best-practice list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

FWIW, I was planning to raise some objections when this went out - I 
can do it now -- basically, I think we should remove the discussion 
of "a collection of semantic webs" which is both naive and misleading 
(section 3.4 of [1]) -- rather, if you wish to refer to something 
like "Semantic intra-nets" or such I could live with that -- the 
point is this content all lives in the same exact address space (the 
http URI space) and separate documents within corporations or the 
like, may be protected by firewalls, or by lack of linking, but since 
they still participate in this same universal space (and via same 
protocols, standards, etc;) saying "Semantic Webs" is as wrong as 
referring to separate "Webs" -- the WWW has intranet/intraweb 
components which are walled-off from others, and this was crucial to 
early Web development, but it is exactly that these could eventually 
be linked to others that we have a (singular) World Wide Web, and 
conveying the idea that somehow the Sem Web is different is both 
misleading and wrong -- if someone totally foolish wanted to create 
their own, unregistered URI scheme, keep their ontologies against 
that scheme (and I guess copy the owl namespace into that space or 
else they link via owl: concepts), and make sure nothing every 
touched the rest of the Web it could be a separate Semantic Web, but 
it seems like an odd and vicious idea to do so.   Linking "islands" 
of the Semantic Web will eventually be very important to its success, 
and it is VERY important that we don't convey the idea that these 
islands are somehow separate -- if we do, then much of the Sem Web 
technology "degrades" back to the traditional, unlinkable, AI stuff, 
which is what we are trying to avoid.
  Tim BL and I had a fight with one of the EU funders who kept trying 
to refer to multiple Semantic Webs, and seeing SWBP feed into this 
foolish misconception would not be a good thing
  -Jim Hendler
   AC Rep
  MIND Lab

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/


At 8:47 +0000 11/14/05, Phil Tetlow wrote:
>Dan,
>
>How do you suggest we go about SWIG review of the ODA note?
>
>It can be found at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Philip Tetlow
>Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect)
>IBM Business Consulting Services
>
>Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton,
>Leeds, LS15 8ZB
>Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata)
>Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328
>Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com

-- 
Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	  	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
(New course: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler/CMSC498w/)
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 16:45:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:19 GMT