- From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:13:36 -0400
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Sam, Drew --
Maybe the approach in the following examples [1,2] would help ?
Some background is at [3].
HTH -- Adrian
[1] http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/MergeOntologies1.agent
[2] http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OntologyInterop2.agent
[3]
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ExpeditionWorkshop/DesignWorkshopforNationalDialogueOnIntelligentManufacturing#nid2ZM
"Semantics and the Web: e-Government Implications of Some Emerging
Technology Beyond W3C"
At 09:21 PM 9/16/04 -0400, you wrote:
> > [Sam Watkins]
> >
> > Obviously, this requires the author of the mediator to be fluent in =
> > terms of both ontologies in order to conserve meaning.
> > I think it is interesting to find the means of constructing these =
> > mediators without the author having to be fluent in OWL-S (or any other =
> > ontology description language) but just in the meaning of the =
> > ontologies.
>
>It's difficult to see what you envisage.
>
> > While this would allow assisted composition using mediators, rather than =
> > fully automated composition, I think this would be a good stepping stone =
> > towards automated composition.
>
>Fully automated composition would presumably require the computer to
>be as smart and knowledgeable as we are. That's not going to happen
>in the foreseeable future.
>
>--
> -- Drew McDermott
> Yale Computer Science Department
Received on Friday, 17 September 2004 12:08:18 UTC