RE: semantics -- Re: Group Note FPWD is done

No disagreement at all, Vassilios.  The more semantic agreement that can be
achieved in advance, the better.  

 

The point I wanted to make is that none of us should be paralyzed into
inaction simply because others may disagree with us.  If each of us merely
documents the meanings of our own terms in readily sharable format,
disparate semantics can be understood and, hopefully, resolved over time.

 

The problem as I see it is that everyone uses their own terms while failing
to document what they mean, in plain language.  That enables all of us to
maintain the illusion of understanding on the one hand while each of us
continues to apply our own interpretations to fit our own biases and views
of the world, with the result that communication is less efficient and
effective than it could be.

 

Owen

 

From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 6:17 AM
To: Peristeras, Vassilios
Cc: Owen Ambur; eGov IG
Subject: semantics -- Re: Group Note FPWD is done

 

Discussion now attached to ISSUE-1

 

J.

 

El 06/03/2009, a las 11:27, Peristeras, Vassilios escribió:





Hello Owen,

 

I agree with you and disagree at the same time :-)

I think it is an issue of balance:

It is completely unfeasible to predefine all the semantics that you need and
persuade everyone to follow the derived specs.

At the same time, it is feasible to create a minimum of common language, a
thin semantic layer to avoid huge integration effort later. Which means that
I personally buy the slogan "Little semantics goes a long way" (Jim Hendler,
as far as I know).

This is in my opinion how the (semantic) web is evolving (see Dublic Core,
SKOS, FOAF, SIOC as examples). Small specs that people can easily buy and
use instead of heavy ontologies where you need PhDs to implement (e.g. Cyc,
DOLCE, OWL-S, WSMO).

 

Best regards,

Vassilios

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Owen Ambur
Sent: 02 March 2009 23:16
To: 'eGov IG'
Subject: RE: Group Note FPWD is done

 

Jose, I'd like to see this section rewritten:

http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note#Semantics

 

It is not necessary to agree upon the semantics in advance.  So long as the

definitions of the elements are documented, machine intelligence can be

applied to foster understanding of the differences.  It may also be possible

to infer the semantics of the elements based upon the kinds of data that

actually occur between the tags.

 

Owen

 

-----Original Message-----

From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]

On Behalf Of Jose M. Alonso

Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:09 AM

To: eGov IG

Subject: Group Note FPWD is done

 

All,

 

It has been a very intense weekend. Some of us, namely Kevin, John and 

me have been working until the very last minute on developing the 

final draft. We have worked on the document until yesterday night, 

then called it done.

 

Final document is a snapshot of the current Editor's Draft [1] and we 

are requesting publication on March 10; comments will be welcomed 

until April 26.

 

Thanks John, Oscar, Daniel and Owen for providing content for the 

document. Very special thanks to Kevin for bearing with me over the 

last couple days and a great editorial work.

 

I think the document is quite solid but no doubt that with the help of 

others it could be greatly improved, so do not hesitate to send 

comments or offering authoring help.

 

Cheers,

Jose.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note

 

--

Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC

eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/