- From: Jeff Z. Pan <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:22:58 -0000
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Phil Tetlow" <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "best-practice list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <danbri@w3.org>
> I understand your point and think we may well have a compromise – Ill ask > Jeff Pan to update the document to read “Semantic (Intra) Web’s”, if that’s > OK with you? Done. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ Jim, many thanks for your constructive comments. Greetings, Jeff -- Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/) Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen > You raise another interesting and important point though. I personally know > of a good handful for applications for RDF, OWL and even SWRL that do not > directly relate to any ‘Web’, or intranet, context, so should such > practices be discouraged from a standards perspective, or even for the sake > of preserving an absolute reference description of the Semantic Web? I > guess the only real answer is “no” given that the same could be said of > older Web technologies like HTML. Nevertheless I do think it is important > to point out somewhere that Sem Web technologies can be extremely powerful > if applied properly, and equally so in cases of misapplication. > > As for your point on Sem Web use cases not incorporating RDF or OWL etc, I > think I agree but am not quite sure yet….In the Software Engineering > Workshop at ISWC, for example, we had a guy point out that the latest > version of Java is capable of consuming/using ‘metaobjects’ (forgive me for > being vague as I have not looked up the specifics yet and am just referring > to the raw concept here) and I guess that as long as such objects used URI > conventions based around some triple-based graph scheme, regardless of the > nomenclature in which they were instantiated, I can already see a potential > for the creation of some powerful ‘interfaces’ to the Sem Web world without > the use of any of its base language set – I guess my point is that if the > architecture of a use case is correct, the implementation technologies > behind it become less important (but I have never been too sure about such > philosophical matters! ;0)). I know that this is not the same as saying > that something is applicable to the Semantic Web even if it does not > contain any trace of its heritage (for example I saw a presentation at ISWC > on logic compression that I did not consider to be overly relevant), but I > do think that there are some issues here that we may have to think about. > > Again your thoughts would indeed be valued. > > Best Regards, > > Philip Tetlow > Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect) > IBM Business Consulting Services > > Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton, > Leeds, LS15 8ZB > Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata) > Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328 > Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com > > > > Jim Hendler > <hendler@cs.umd.e > du> To > Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB > 15/11/2005 02:37 cc > Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, > "best-practice list" > <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, > danbri@s3.org > Subject > Re: [SE] Ontology Driven > Architecture Note > > > > > > > > > > > Phil - it wasn't the concept that bothered me - > it was the terminology - the idea of Semantic > Intra-Webs doesn't bother me, the idea of > "Semantic Webs" (with an S) is what I think we > need to avoid because it gives people the wrong > idea - for example, I saw a couple of things at > ISWC that claimed to be Semantic Web, but didn't > use RDF, OWL, any kind of URI scheme, or anything > that would allow linking into the Semantic Web... > doesn't seem to me that that is a good thing to > promote > -JH > p.s. FWIW, I thought this note would be a good > one for SWBP, in fact better than many of the > things turned out that are sort of "ontologies > for experts" instead of "why use the Semantic > Web" -- if the SW CG does start a Sem Web > Outreach WG, then I hope this document will go > there. > > At 21:00 +0000 11/14/05, Phil Tetlow wrote: >>Jim, >> >>I fully appreciate your point and indeed agree in part, but I don't >>necessarily believe that the note is as dangerous, divisive or naïve as > you >>indicate (but I am hoping you will correct me further). As the preceding >>paragraph to the section in question states "it is important to be >>pragmatic" and also mentions that the two cases presented relate to a >>"relational standpoint". >> >>This section was, in fact, included following some considered and valued >>input from Alan Rector and I personally think that it adds great value. > For >>me, it helps break down a number of barriers for many "traditional" >>practitioners who IMHO have a somewhat esoteric view of the Semantic Web > as >>a holistic reality. >> >>The main purpose of the note is to encourage take up in new communities, >>"bridge building" if you will. As such, even though, we all know this side >>of the bridge that linking "islands" of the Semantic Web will be important >>in the future, I think there is another, equally important point we should >>not forget - if the islands are not constructed in the first place, the >>idea of linking them together into higher orders of ontology is merely >>fanciful. Just because such islands choose to exist in the same > referenable >>ocean of HTTP URI space does not preclude them from being located over the >>visible horizon, nor does it suggest that they have to be quarantined from >>the rest of the world to prevent infection (please forgive my somewhat >>forceful analogy here). Furthermore, I think it is important to note that >>less experienced practitioners may well be more comfortable with island >>building, than continent construction right now. >> >>There is also a question of purpose here. This note was deliberately >>written within the Best Practices Working Group to undergo hard review > (and >>it has indeed undergone a baptism of fire so far), so what exactly do we >>mean by "Best Practice" here? Is it about the betterment of the notion of >>"a Semantic Web" as you appear to suggest, or is it more to do with the >>application of current technologies created under the Semantic Web banner? >>If the latter is more relevant, then as an industrial practitioner using >>such technologies in the field right now, the significant feedback I am >>getting from "corporate" adopters is that they have purely selfish reasons >>for adoption, wanting to address specific problems in their own specific >>domains. Hence do we want to refer to such practices using "intra-based" >>terminologies? My feeling is not for exactly the reasons you mention. Many >>users deliberately adopt global namespaces from which to build their own >>isolated understandings for good reason, and so these understandings may >>well be blended into the wider community of the Semantic Web at some point >>in the future (as indicated in the second bullet in the list). Therefore, >>at present, they are neither totally isolated nor totally integrated; they >>are merely invisible web fragments of an early and sporadic semantic > whole. >>Is this bad practice? Is this misconceived? I think not. It may not be >>pure, but it is practical and it is helping to solve a number of serious >>and significant real world problems right now; hence the need for best >>practice guidance in this area. To marginalise such types of application >>would, in my "naïve" mind, be counterproductive, but I wholeheartedly > agree >>with your opinion that it is important to send out the most appropriate >>guidance to an eagerly awaiting audience at this time. Any further advice >>you might have would indeed be appreciated, in what is undoutably a >>contentious area. >> >>I think that it is also important to reiterate that many of the >>applications of Sem Web technologies we are now seeing are less concerned >>with AI and more to do with formality of description and transformation >>potentials. >> >>Ranting over. I must apologise! ;0) >> >>Best Regards, >> >>Philip Tetlow >>Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect) >>IBM Business Consulting Services >> >>Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton, >>Leeds, LS15 8ZB >>Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata) >>Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328 >>Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com >> >> >> >> Jim Hendler >> <hendler@cs.umd.e >> du> > To >> Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB, >> 14/11/2005 16:44 danbri@w3.org >> > cc >> "best-practice list" >> <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Tim >> Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> >> > Subject >> Re: [SE] Ontology Driven >> Architecture Note >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>FWIW, I was planning to raise some objections when this went out - I >>can do it now -- basically, I think we should remove the discussion >>of "a collection of semantic webs" which is both naive and misleading >>(section 3.4 of [1]) -- rather, if you wish to refer to something >>like "Semantic intra-nets" or such I could live with that -- the >>point is this content all lives in the same exact address space (the >>http URI space) and separate documents within corporations or the >>like, may be protected by firewalls, or by lack of linking, but since >>they still participate in this same universal space (and via same >>protocols, standards, etc;) saying "Semantic Webs" is as wrong as >>referring to separate "Webs" -- the WWW has intranet/intraweb >>components which are walled-off from others, and this was crucial to >>early Web development, but it is exactly that these could eventually >>be linked to others that we have a (singular) World Wide Web, and >>conveying the idea that somehow the Sem Web is different is both >>misleading and wrong -- if someone totally foolish wanted to create >>their own, unregistered URI scheme, keep their ontologies against >>that scheme (and I guess copy the owl namespace into that space or >>else they link via owl: concepts), and make sure nothing every >>touched the rest of the Web it could be a separate Semantic Web, but >>it seems like an odd and vicious idea to do so. Linking "islands" >>of the Semantic Web will eventually be very important to its success, >>and it is VERY important that we don't convey the idea that these >>islands are somehow separate -- if we do, then much of the Sem Web >>technology "degrades" back to the traditional, unlinkable, AI stuff, >>which is what we are trying to avoid. >> Tim BL and I had a fight with one of the EU funders who kept trying >>to refer to multiple Semantic Webs, and seeing SWBP feed into this >>foolish misconception would not be a good thing >> -Jim Hendler >> AC Rep >> MIND Lab >> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ >> >> >>At 8:47 +0000 11/14/05, Phil Tetlow wrote: >>>Dan, >>> >>>How do you suggest we go about SWIG review of the ODA note? >>> >>>It can be found at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ >>> >>>Best Regards, >>> >>>Philip Tetlow >>>Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect) >>>IBM Business Consulting Services >>> >>>Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton, >>>Leeds, LS15 8ZB >>>Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata) >>>Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328 >>>Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com >> >>-- >>Professor James Hendler Director >>Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery > 301-405-2696 >>UMIACS, Univ of Maryland > 301-314-9734 >>(Fax) >>College Park, MD 20742 >>http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler >>(New course: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler/CMSC498w/) > > -- > Professor James Hendler Director > Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery 301-405-2696 > UMIACS, Univ of Maryland 301-314-9734 > (Fax) > College Park, MD 20742 > http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler > (New course: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler/CMSC498w/) >
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 19:23:44 UTC