- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:43:38 -0500
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, welty@us.ibm.com, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, pan@cs.man.ac.uk
Evan You may well have a point here, but demarcation is, nevertheless, important. If you have any thoughts on additional words for the SE terms of reference, they would indeed be appreciated. Jeff and I have discussed the remit of the proposed task force on a number of occasions now and we are both keen to make this a distinct and significant contribution to the Working Group. Furthermore, I hope that the very establishment of such a task force will send a strong and clear signal out the wider IT industry. If this is tainted with even the slightest controversy I fear that minor issues could be amplified out of all proportion by those who do not share our enthusiasm for the Semantic Web. So I am obviously keen to get things right early on. Perhaps I might suggest the following change to the SE ToR as a starting point: To investigate potential synergies between the Semantic Web and domains more traditionally associated with Software Engineering. This is to enable the promotion and cross-pollination of both new and established ideas between the two communities, potentially relating to: o Use cases o THE APPLICATION of models, patterns and frameworks o Methods and tools o Underpinning technologies o Best practice Kind regards Phil Tetlow Senior Consultant IBM Business Consulting Services Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328 ewallace@cme.nist .gov To 23/11/2004 14:40 dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, welty@us.ibm.com, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, pan@cs.man.ac.uk cc Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB Subject Re: OEP and SE Jeff Pan wrote: >I would like to discuss with you the relationship between the OEP TF and the >proposed SE TF. > >As mentioned in [1], the distinction between the two TFs is clear, i.e., OEP >is more about engineering and patterns of ontologies, while SE is more about >the use of ontologies in software architecture and lifecycles. The SE TF terms >of reference [2] explicitly states that the scopes of the two TFs are disjoint.> > >There are some potential connections between the two TFs. For instance, >"Mapping from UML to OWL" is a suggested topic in OEP TF [3], the results >from which could be applied in topics in SE TF, such as "Ontology-Driven >Software Engineering". I don't really believe that there is a clean demarcation line between the scopes of these two Task Forces. For each item of work we may choose a single home, but that choice sometimes will be arbitrary. The Semantic Integration note is a case in point. This is not a problem in my view. As long as we don't have turf battles or contradictory notes. Its better to spend time writing notes than writing careful scope descriptions. (Now, if I could just find some time to write either!) -Evan
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 20:44:58 UTC