W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > December 2001

RE: Serendipitous Interoperability

From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 16:30:48 -0000
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D1ABDD9@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Jim Farrugia'" <jim@spatial.maine.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Jim Farrugia [mailto:jim@spatial.maine.edu]
[...]
> I think Ora hit the nail on the head when he said many simple examples
> can be solved by other (non-Semantic-Web) means.
[...]
> Explain which 
>    of the specific problems can't be addressed without a WOL and why 
>    not.  I think this latter piece is the most critical part.

Yes.  One interesting question is how to find a use-case with such specific
problems where there is *no* way of addressing the problem without a WOL.  I
suspect that there are general (and fairly wooly) examples of problems that
cannot be solved without a WOL, but I suspect all the specific problems can
be solved in other ways if someone were willing to throw enough money at
that specific problem.  In general, developers are very good at thinking of
answers to specific problems that can be addressed with familiar
technologies, and are not amenable to arguments that their answer satisfies
the specific case but does not scale to other cases.

Is there another interesting set of use cases where specific problems are
very much easier (and hence very much cheaper) to address with a WOL than
without it?  Cost, rather than technical feasibility, drives most practical
implementations.

		- Peter
--
Peter Crowther, Chief Architect, Network Inference Limited
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 11:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT