Re: A thought about requirements

I do not think that tarring some of the working group members as only being
motivated by "academic politics" is at all helpful.  

Peter F. Patel-Schneider


From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
Subject: Re: A thought about requirements
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 19:18:18 -0700

> 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 Tuesday, 30 May 2006 07:31:48 UTC