W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > October 2002

Re[2]: (SeWeb) KAON - KArlsruhe ONtology and Semantic Web Infrastructure

From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mmk.ru>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:00:49 +0600
Message-ID: <7333.021014@mmk.ru>
To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
CC: Atanas Kiryakov <Atanas.Kiryakov@sirma.bg>, Alexander Maedche <Maedche@fzi.de>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org, seweb-list@cs.vu.nl, kaw@swi.psy.uva.nl

Dear John and Atanas,

Suppose your discussion has one more aspect, namely, the ontology
communites try to use not very deep fundamentals. Therefore such many
different languages, tools etc. Suppose the mindes must be turned to
this for a consensus. Or one of the competitors will win with a de
facto accepted decisions. Look at my paper -
http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it/21abreast.htm

Best regards,
 Leonid
mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru
=====================================================
Leonid Ototsky,
http://ototsky.mgn.ru
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru
Russia
=====================================================

Monday, October 14, 2002, 1:28:39 AM, you wrote:




JFS> Dear Naso,

JFS> People have complained about on-going discussions to these
JFS> mailing lists, but to avoid misunderstanding, I have to
JFS> clarify my point:

JFS>  > I guess you have number of complaints about each one of the distinct
JFS>  > brands of cars or instant messengers. And probably it could be the
JFS>  > case that if their manufacturers would have joined forces to develop
JFS>  > a single excellent car ...

JFS> First, I wasn't complaining.  I was asking a question because in some
JFS> cases, there are good reasons for collaborating, and in other cases,
JFS> there are good reasons for competing.

JFS> For instant messaging, there is no good reason for having different
JFS> formats, and many good reasons for using a common format (just as
JFS> everyone on the Internet has agreed to use TCP/IP).  For designing
JFS> cars, however, there are many good reasons for having competing
JFS> designs to explore all the possible variations.

JFS>  > Seriously, letting all the community to develop a single tool with
JFS>  > no alternative is quite a strange idea!

JFS> We aren't talking about a single tool, but about fragmented efforts to
JFS> design about a dozen different tools that are intended to accomplish
JFS> similar goals.  Furthermore, each tool has only a small number of
JFS> people working on it, and very few people are building on the work
JFS> that other people have contributed to the community.

JFS> I was asking a very serious question:  Have the people who decided
JFS> to work on their own looked at the previous efforts before starting?
JFS> Or are they just "reinventing the wheel" without being aware of or
JFS> by deliberating ignoring what was previously available?

JFS>  > So, if you ask for interoperability standards and interfaces, I
JFS>  > will provide as much support as I can. But "the one and only best
JFS>  > tool for everybody to use" ... my country was under communism
JFS>  > for half century and I am getting nightmares from such centralized
JFS>  > ideas.

JFS> I agree with you that forced coercion to a centralized authority is
JFS> bad (and that is why I am very suspicious of efforts to enforce a
JFS> single standard for ontology).  What I am recommending is something
JFS> like the approach taken in science:

JFS>   1. Every scientist is free to pursue his or her own intuitions
JFS>      about the best direction for further research.

JFS>   2. But the most significant scientific developments are made
JFS>      by researchers who make informed decisions about which ideas
JFS>      to modify and which ideas to build on.

JFS> My original question was simply asking whether the new system
JFS> was based on informed decisions or on a lack of information
JFS> about the other approaches.

JFS> John Sowa
Received on Sunday, 13 October 2002 23:58:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:43 GMT