Re: In Support of Explicit Standardised Types

> [Rob Atkinson]

> Ultimate;y the meaning is derived from the existence of an 
> interoperability standard (de jure, de facto, or at least an expectation 
> of a common operating environment). Thus the ontology is of the 
> standards that actually make the services useful, with additional 
> descriptions of the functions to allow you to discover that the standard 
> is what you need to find supported bt real services.  IMHO all the fluff 
> about creating descriptions of ad-hoc interfaces  accessing  
> ill-defined  functions and even less well defined content is just going 
> to be yet another wreck o the roadside. However, the ability to register 
> well known service types within an ontology seems like a simple, 
> scalable and usage driven solution to the same problem.

Could you be more specific about what's "fluffy" and what isn't?  It
would be helpful to have examples of 

* ad-hoc interfaces
* ill-defined functions
* poorly defined content

I tend to agree with you that we're in danger of going into the ditch
somewhere in this vicinity, but I'd like a clearer picture of where
the shoulder in the road is.


-- 
                                   -- Drew McDermott
                                      Yale Computer Science Department

Received on Saturday, 22 May 2004 09:39:37 UTC