- From: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:41:40 -0700
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
It's been interesting following your positions on this issue, and timely for us as we are faced with a decision as a start-up on whether to embrace standards, pursue our own architecture, or some combination thereof. My personal preference has always leaned towards interoperability, but consensus making in a universe of conflicting interests and agendas, not to mention market share influence in computing and foundation technologies... makes for an interesting decision process. It appears that reality will require some combination thereof, particularly when observing the challenges with ontology editors given our lofty goals in functionality. It's not clear to me how one achieves high adoption levels of ontological languages of any kind without resolving the URI, at least for cross org and/or public use, and the lack of efficiency with labor intensive customization would also limit adoption levels. I do see some understandable confusion between URI and content in ontology, which may be unavoidable given the difference between mathematical definitions and human interpretations. Personally I am far less concerned with what is agreed upon than I am in agreement evidenced by adoption. Of course it must function well, but I have more confidence that vendors will follow adoption (demand) than leading with consensus. We'd be interested in discussing the possibility of testing a couple of assumptions in partnering in our work, if it would help- think it might. Thanks for your energy, all. Mark Montgomery Founder, Kyield
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 21:42:04 UTC