W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:11:32 -0500
Message-Id: <7ce3e754e2e3231d2fe645f69e9bd74b@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: "''public-sws-ig@w3.org ' '" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, "''jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk ' '" <jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: "Shi, Xuan" <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>

On Nov 23, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Shi, Xuan wrote:
[snip]
> To answer your question "And what happened to the problems of 
> logic(s)?",
> could you please tell me

Hmm. Either you left out a "not", i.e, "To not answer your question", 
or you don't understand that answering a question generally involves 
*your* answering the questions.

>  if SW people agree that there are many other
> "semantics" besides logic(s)? If this is true, then the problem of SW
> technology is it may ignore many other "semantics" except the logic(s).

To sum up Drew's rebuttal in a word: Piffle.

[snip]
> Or if you eventually create such an ontology of color class in 
> RDF/OWL, how
> many people can understand it? It's a pretty AI game.

Yay, insult! YOU MUST BE RIGHT!!! AI BAD. GAMES BAD. PRETTINESS BAD!!!! 
It's all complex and complexity is bad.

Pfft.

The heart of your complaint seems to be that the Semantic web is *not* 
based on magic pixie dust. That, to me, is a good thing.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 00:11:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT