- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:23:20 -0400
- To: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>, Holger Wache <holger@cs.vu.nl>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, dreer@fh-furtwangen.de, public-sws-ig@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> Hi Michael -- > > At 03:09 PM 6/28/2005 -0400, you wrote: > People think databases but use OWL. > Now, this is a real semantic mismatch: people mean (and want!) one thing, > but get a completely different thing. > > And, as I think you imply, they may not realize that what they got is not > what they asked for. Not only that they don't get what they expect to their queries, but that they have no simple way of stating what they want. > That could be downright dangerous. I suppose, if this thing drives air traffic control or railroad switches. > An English author- and user-interface to a reasoning system can go a long > way towards mitigating the problem, particularly if it can explain its > reasoning in English. Yes, explanations are very important, but this issue is orthogonal to the OWA/CWA debate. cheers --michael > > (For folks who have not seen this before, there is a reasoning system > with an open vocabulary English interface, online at the site below. > Non-commercial use is free.) > > Cheers, -- Adrian > > >INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R) >www.reengineeringllc.com > >Adrian Walker >Reengineering LLC >PO Box 1412 >Bristol >CT 06011-1412 USA > >Phone: USA 860 583 9677 >Cell: USA 860 830 2085 >Fax: USA 860 314 1029
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 21:25:05 UTC