- 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