W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Zen & Chinwag

From: Johan Hjelm <johan.hjelm@era-t.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:26:52 +0900
Message-ID: <3ADA3C4C.B3CA0E4B@era-t.ericsson.se>
To: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
CC: Stuart Naylor <indtec@eircom.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I hate to say this over and over, but CC/PP is exactly what you describe: A
metadata framework for agent description. In the WAP context (since they are the
only ones to develop a metadata vocabulary, they are the only ones we know
about) it works exactly as you describe: The profile of the client is matched
against the profile on the server (that for instance describes the document).

Johan

Danny Ayers wrote:

> Interesting stuff - I would have thought if communications/semantics could
> sorted out for legal systems then anything is possible!
>
> Anyhow, your mention of the mini-service technologies (Jini etc) struck a
> chord with me. I've been wandering around this area myself, and have come to
> the conclusion that probably the easiest approach, going with the flow of
> recent developments, is to move everything possible from the inference
> engine/agent side of things into the metadata area. The immediate benefit is
> that the engines/agents themselves can be more generic, their context being
> taken from the metadata on which they operate. The particular implementation
> of the advertising/discovery mechanisms becomes irrelevant - anything that
> can play metadata can join in. If a reasonable amount of metadata can be
> extracted/generated/written about an agent, then the first stages of
> negotiation between one agent and another are nothing more than a
> pattern-matching excercise between two sets of metadata, needing little more
> sophistication than e.g. LDAP style directory services. The benefits go
> further - by abstracting out the description of the agent, it pulls it
> across into the same domain as other data or active entities (reifies?) so
> that the agent itself because just another thing that can be reasoned about.
>
> <- So here goes for my theoretical XML protocol ‘Chinwag’ the purpose of
> <- Chinwag is to allow two bodies to have a discourse to ascertain there
> <- relevance and have no need of any formal industry specific XML structure.
>
> Relating this to your description of Chinwag, finding the coarse-grained
> compatibility/relevance of the two bodies is trivial, as metadata about each
> will be available. There is the formality of having a common metadata
> format, but I think some common language would be necessary in any case. The
> coarse-grained matching comes cheap, and less resources are needed to check
> relevance and initiate discourse at a more domain-specific level.
>
> I've recently put this idea forward in the form of a practical proposal for
> profiling processes (including agents) but it looks like this idea is going
> to languish in the wilderness, and the hole be filled in a different fashion
> (perhaps with a less-appropriately shaped peg). Who cares? - we'll get the
> Semantic Web and its descendents before long, one way or another.
>
> ---
> Danny Ayers
> http://www.isacat.net
>
> <- -----Original Message-----
> <- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> <- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stuart Naylor
> <- Sent: 13 April 2001 17:04
> <- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> <- Subject: Zen & Chinwag
> <-
> <-
> <- (This was for LegalXML.Org but please comment)
> <-
> <- There seems to be quite a lot of movement in RPC calls for
> <- devices. I posted
> <- quite a lot of bumf to the discussion forum Keywords: - Jini, UDDI, SOAP,
> <- UPnP and their surrounding technologies.
> <- Which even if you don’t agree with what I am about to say they are will
> <- worth a look in the context of LegalXML.
> <- Also there seems to be a lot of postings about TBL's Semantic Web AKA Net
> <- Gods tenth commandment. The web was there to some extent before TBL and I
> <- prefer to think of him as the gardener rather than the creator. This is
> <- because the web has this strange but almost organic growth to
> <- it. I see the
> <- Semantic web as a great prophesy to provide the next generation
> <- of the web
> <- as a huge monolithic open knowledge service. It tackles the web
> <- as a whole
> <- as opposed to many of the above technologies, which make it a
> <- collection of
> <- many mini services. I also think that he is correct but like so
> <- many of the
> <- devout they can take things out of context.
> <- The Semantic web will be a revolution to creating a huge open knowledge
> <- store with the emphasis on open. In the context of Legal though
> <- I would say
> <- without trying to offend anyone this is not the case.
> <- Intellectual property
> <- rights and the whole concept of legal jargon, precedents and so on places
> <- two legal bodies always in the position where any exchange is the minimum
> <- legal requirement to satisfy both parties. As you will tell I
> <- have no legal
> <- experience what so ever but I would so the interchange of legal
> <- information
> <- is anything but Semantic and Open. May be someone would like to
> <- quantify how
> <- wrong I am there, but anyway. What I believe is that business
> <- information is
> <- not Semantic at least not until we have been paid for it.
> <- I started knocking TBL on purpose because I am now going to have
> <- a go at the
> <- very idea of LegalXML in its present form. Please bear in mind that these
> <- statements are purely to form a discussion and without a doubt
> <- TBL does have
> <- green fingers just like the work that has been undertaken by
> <- LegalXML.org.
> <- There seems to be a presumption that a given Legal scenario for example a
> <- court filing will be able to be expressed in a defined
> <- structure. That Legal
> <- XML will lay down the protocol law and as long as we adhere we will reach
> <- communication Nirvana. This provides problems with the freedom
> <- of speech of
> <- applications where an application may find a better method of
> <- expression but
> <- have no method of translation.
> <- I don’t want to try and express the meaning of life but I am
> <- quite prepared
> <- to say I had a good day. Like that sentence we need systems that
> <- can provide
> <- a decomposition of an entity into what we are prepared to exchange.
> <-
> <- What would be interesting is not only at a B2B scenario that applications
> <- themselves would interact just as we do. It’s our first day and
> <- we get the
> <- instructions there is the accounts dept, photocopier, your desk,
> <- tea break
> <- at 10.30, goodbye.
> <-
> <- In one of my previous emails about John McClure’s
> <- http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml I stated I couldn’t
> <- understand it’s use, but I have seen the light.
> <-
> <- So here goes for my theoretical XML protocol ‘Chinwag’ the purpose of
> <- Chinwag is to allow two bodies to have a discourse to ascertain there
> <- relevance and have no need of any formal industry specific XML structure.
> <-
> <- When we give two applications there first day at work they need to how
> <- relevant they are and how they will communicate so the only formal
> <- constructs of Chinwag are WHORU, IAM, and THISISME.
> <-
> <- The legal case management app and accounts app are introduced a
> <- polite pause
> <- and the legal case management app goes first ‘WHORU’.
> <-
> <- ‘IAM’ financial [parents: #Legal, #App Vendor Semantic] GL, Billings…
> <- ‘IAM’ cms [parents: #Legal, #App Vendor Semantic] Client, Case, PIM…
> <-
> <- John and http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml I now see as
> <- very important because of the following: -
> <-
> <- possession [parents: #Right , #Legal ] The holding, control, or
> <- custody of
> <- property for one's own use, either as the owner or person with another
> <- right.
> <- possession [parents: #Poltergeist, #Supernatural] The holding,
> <- control, or
> <- custody of one, either as the owner or person without right.
> <-
> <- Pure example stuff but this is where TBL’s Semantics comes in where it is
> <- the web itself as like the DNS (Domain Name System) the hops or metrics
> <- between those two means the application can deduce that maybe,
> <- similar but
> <- your coming from Alaska on that one.
> <-
> <- The next conversation is ‘THISISME’ at this point a full API call list is
> <- presented with the XML fragment that represents the return data
> <- but the most
> <- important is a by element reference to its own application definition.
> <- Through the context of Semantics and the approximation of definitions a
> <- protocol can be deduced without the need of formal schema declaration.
> <-
> <- I am working on ‘Chinwag’ at this moment the actual protocol is
> <- very simple
> <- but it is the AI required for a demonstration. So far I have dissected a
> <- ‘Chess’ AI engine because I am trying to enable the functionality for
> <- scenario’s where a single API call will not satisfy a transaction but a
> <- series of calls (moves in my case) will.
> <-
> <- So it’s Pawns away for me at the moment but I think John McClure’s
> <- DCD100.xml is a very interesting proposition but instead of
> <- describing human
> <- Legal keywords provide context, taxonomy of the components of legal
> <- entities. I believe LegalXML should be defining the elements in
> <- context but
> <- not the structure.
> <-
> <- I know the meaning of life it’s 42, the problem is what is the question.
> <-

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Johan Hjelm, Senior Specialist
     Ericsson Research Japan

  Read more about my recent book
http://www.wireless-information.net
************************************


Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 20:23:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT