Re: [OEP,ALL] Potential topics for OEP notes

Christopher Welty wrote:

[..]

> 
> Regarding semantic integration, I suspect you will be in the minority. 
>  In the business world, everyone is looking to SW as a way to address 
> semantic integration.  I think its our job to set the proper 
> expectations, or we will go down in flames.  This is very important, in 
> my opinion,more so than the specifc pattern notes.

I concur with Chris on the overall importance of the topic. I'm just 
putting together a talk on SW applications of interest for business. I 
selected four cases from our ADTF weblog (AKTive Space, DOPE, Building 
Finder, Museums on the Web) and they all do some form of information 
integration. They seem to be most appealing to business people.

How OEP can help integration is another matter, of course.

Guus
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
> IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA 
>              
> Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
> Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/
> 
> 
> ewallace@cme.nist.gov
> 
> 10/08/2004 01:52 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Re: [OEP,ALL] Potential topics for OEP notes
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In response to Chris Welty's recent suggestions for OEP notes:
> 
> I think that notes on partOf, units and measures, time, and
> fluents (need a friendlier term though) would go a long way
> toward making SW languages more interesting and useful for
> business and technical users.  Accomplishing that is
> precisely why I participate in this WG, so I would be very
> happy to see us produce these notes!
> 
> Chris Welty wrote:
> 
>  >On the side of "ontology engineering":
> 
> Hmm.  I thought that in creating patterns for use, we were
> mining past work in ontological engineering to suggest best
> practices for the semantic web.  Thus the development of
> patterns was on the side of "ontological engineering, more so
> in fact then philosophical view of existence that are alluded
> to in the last paragraph of Chris' email.
> 
>  >Ontology 101 tutorial specifically for OWL/RDF.
> 
> A tutorial is outside the scope of the OEP TF.  The WG has a separate
> Tutorial effort that would seem an appropriate home for that.
> 
>  >I think a note to help orient people on the role OWL and RDF in semantic
>  >integration is critical, I get pinged on that regularly.  I lot of people
>  >think OWL is the silver bullet for semantic integration (I suggested at
>  >ISWC last year that semantic integration is a mountain, not a werewolf,
>  >and OWL is, at best, a small silver chisel). There was just a Dagstuhl
>  >symposium on this subject in general (i.e. not specific to OWL), and
>  >special issues of AI Magazine and Sigmod record coming out as well.  I
>  >hope Natasha and/or MikeU will take the lead on such a note.
> 
> Again, while potentially helpful,  this doesn't sound like an OEP task.
> 
>  >People who know what "ontology" and "semantics" actually mean (in the 
> much
>  >larger world outside of computer science), often ask why the two have
>  >become nearly synonymous on the semantic web.  Personally, I think its a
>  >fair question and a short note on why we're so confused would be
>  >worthwhile.  Maybe this goes in another task force (wasn't there a clean
>  >up the mess we've made task force?).
> 
> Can we try to avoid using such inflammatory language in this working
> group?  Chris may have missed both the silly "not webby enough" email
> exchange and the less silly but still frustrating "reification" discussion
> the WG had earlier this year.  Those dialogues showed that the SWBPD WG can
> easily fall into unproductive behavior.  We have too much work to do to 
> waste
> time arguing like that, so let's try not to avoid saying things in a way 
> that
> could lead us into more of such bickering.
> 
> As for the task described: Anything that helps other communities understand
> SW terms and thinking is a good thing IMHO.  As Chris suggested, it 
> probably
> would fit best as a WRLD TF task (though this TF is currently moribund 
> due to
> lack of resources).
> 
> -Evan
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/

Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 22:51:36 UTC