Re: A thought about requirements

If your attitude is really representative then I will have few  
alternatives. Groups are self-selecting in that way.
But, several members of the group are in fact motivated by other than  
academic politics. I was hoping to spur them somewhat.

On May 28, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On May 28, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> This note is in reaction to what I feel is a misplaced spirit in  
>> this group.
>>
>> I do not have the numbers to hand, but my estimation is that in  
>> the 'rules market', it would not surprise me if the 'production  
>> rule'-based technology owned 95% of the market. But you would not  
>> know that watching the traffic on this list.
>
> And so? Many of the members of the group are not in the PR rules  
> market, so it's irrelevant to us, except insofar as those of us  
> with customers (or other consitencies) of some sort have customers  
> who are interested in interchanging with PR rulesets.
>
> The traffic on the list reflects the interests of the group. Each  
> participant in the group represents their member organization and  
> its interests. That's how a working group works. If my  
> organization's interest is to delay or kill production rules,  
> that's our prerogative. I don't know that anyone on this group has  
> that agenda, at least per se, (no organization I'm a member of has  
> voiced this to me), but neither do they have an interest in classic  
> production rule like systems.
>
> If you, or others, have such an interest, it's up to you to stick  
> up for it.
>
>> By ignoring the PRR side of the side this group risks making  
>> itself irrelevant.
> [snip]
>
> To you perhaps, but it's a little rash for you to judge *our*  
> interests and appropriate notions of relevance.
>
> Now, I've heard appeals from PR advocates (on the one hand) and  
> e.g., Semantic Web advocates (on the other) that working together  
> to meet both sets of needs is both possible and offers a boost to  
> each side. I don't really think that will work, as I said at the  
> Rules Workshop (at least, I don't think that a joint group is the  
> best way to proceed). But fine. At least that is a *respectful*  
> approach.
>
> Let's face it, to gain consensus, everyone has to offer something  
> to opposing interests. But saying, "foo is important, screw bar" is  
> unlikely to win, at least easily.
>
> But I totally refuse to apologize for representing the interests of  
> my organzation(s) (er...when I've gotten myself back together  
> enough to make a telecon :)), and I refuse to stop doing it.
>
> As for the rest, basically, I think that we're treating existing  
> languages as embodying application needs, so afaict, we try to deal  
> languages, not specific applications. As long as the languages have  
> real user bases, I don't see this is silly. However, there is a  
> deep question about what useful interchange can be supported across  
> so many wildly different paradigms.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 02:18:30 UTC