W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2001

INTEROP: Fwd: Re: Serendipitous Interoperability

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:03:57 -0500
Message-Id: <p04330119b83ffd2d4190@[]>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
This message was sent to me, Jim agreed to let me forward it to 
webont.  It is in response to Ora's posting this AM -- it has 
engendered some discussion on www-rdf-logic, and I would direct those 
interested to that list for further discussion of Jim's points. 
Discussion of Ora's points can be made here or there depending on 
your judgement of relevance to webont.

>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:42:56 -0500 (EST)
>From: Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>
>To: Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org>, hendler@cs.umd.edu
>cc: Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>
>Subject: Re: Serendipitous Interoperability
>Ora and Jim,
>I just read Ora's posting to webont
>and I have some comments.
>If you think I should post these to the rdf-logic list, let me know.
>I think Ora hit the nail on the head when he said many simple examples
>can be solved by other (non-Semantic-Web) means. If the WOL is to take
>hold, I think as much effort needs to go into documenting the "why" of the
>language as goes into developing the language itself. Specifically,
>  * several uses cases that demonstrate in detail why a WOL is needed
>    to solve them.  These use cases may be different from the use cases
>    being presented now, or there may be some overlap. But the difference
>    in _intent_ would be that while the use cases now are presented as "here
>    is what I would like a WOL to allow me to be able to do," the use cases
>    I am suggesting would say something more like "here is an example of
>    why a WOL is needed to solve a particular problem."  Also, such use cases
>    would be small packaged examples written to an audience of language
>    users, not language developers. Specifically, the following structure
>    seems useful to me.
>    Start with a description of a general use case.  Give several specific
>    issues/problems that this use case treats.  Explain which of these
>    specific problems can be solved w/o the WOL and why/how.  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.  Then show
>    how certain constructs or features of the WOL solves those specific
>    problems.  I think that all this could be written up in 2-5 pages. 
>    And I think the webont group would want to have, say, at least a dozen
>    such cogently argued cases.
>    Do you think any part of the webont group should/will take on these
>    responsibilities? It seems that the language developers must have
>    already internalized many of the reasons why a WOL is  needed. If
>    they, or another subgroup (publicity???:-) could be charged with writing
>    short pieces specifically addressed to potential users of the
>    language, it seems it would help with the adoption of the WOL. 
>    I think what I am suggesting represents a concrete way of addressing
>    the problem that Oro mentioned (about simple examples ...).
>    What do you think?
>I also have a set of comments about how the webont group suggests
>that the language might be used - in the sense of how will
>documents/resources get tagged with WOL?  What kinds of tools are needed,
>and how are they different from existing editors?  How can semantic
>issues of WOL be addressed in an editor?  I'll leave my detailed comments
>for a subsequent email.

Prof. James Hendler			Director, Semantic Web and 
Agent Technology
301-405-2696 (phone)		Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab
301-405-8488 (fax)		University of Maryland
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler 	College Park, MD 20742
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 14:04:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:40 UTC