Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?

Michael Uschold concluded a general law in his paper "Where are the Semantics in the Semantic Web?" published by AI Magazine, 24 (3), 25--36, that

“The more agreement there is, the less it is necessary to have machine processable semantics.” What are "machine processable semantics"? Maybe Bijan's logic modelings?

This means, if we have more agreements in this community, people like Bijan will have nothing to do. And that why he ignored such issues and keeps misleading, if not cheating, the world.

In the history, most people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Eventually it's proved such an idea was wrong. But we all know what happened in the history when someone told the truth. It's the same in SWS community. 

I just hope that all people just don't believe such "authority" like Bijan or something else, but have to have more critical and independent spirit in "scientific" reesarch - pursue the truth, not the authority, as those well-respected scientists may be wrong, and definitely can be wrong. 

If anyone would like to read this paper: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109560959/PDFSTART , you can see how a Nobel Prize winner in 1940s, prevented those different but correct approaches from discussion and publication in the history - his students could only make corrections and published the result after he died.

In the history, even some well-respected "scientiests' wanted to send those who against them to Mars. Today, someone(s) in this SWS-IG just blocked my discussion and emails two times - they just repeated the historical events in nowadays.

I actually don't care whether Bijan ignore me or not - my future life and career will not depend on anyone in this community. But Bijan cares - he fears about that when people know the truth and generate more agreements/standards/protocols, he might have to find somethign else to do. If we know he has such obvious vested interest on his specialties rather than agreement/standard/protocol, we can ignore him and his products. And that why he told us that he "personally don't know of any (successfully) commercial or production uses of OWL-S, WSMO, or the  like,..."

When Bijian boasts his "Web services", ask him first whether he is talking about a Web-site or not. When he boasts his modelings, just ask him why and how can we use his modeling when we develop ''a" Web service, such as the favorite "AirlineTicketing" or "HotelBooking" kind of services, then we can understand he is actually talking about how to modeling a Web-site, not that two real services. If Bijan would like to remove the process modeling from OWL-S, I would welcome it, though there's not even a tiny bit of evidence of that, alas. Sigh. 

As a "scientist", you can igore me or anyone who is againts you, but you cannot ignore the problems and questions. As the chair of this IG, you cannot fear that people who are against you will ask you questions. At least in this country, the bi-partisan politics can teach you even the President of US  cannot ignore the problems and questions from the other-side. As a team leader, you have to learn a lot.

Regards,

Xuan


>>> Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> 10/13/2006 3:14 PM >>>

And sigh, I meant that to be private, obviously. I fully expect a  
Xuanslought. Which I shall ignore. As I recommend to everyone. If  
Xuan Shi would like to change this dynamic, I would welcome it,  
though there's not even a tiny bit of evidence of that, alas. Sigh.

Well, I might as well take this faux pas as an opportunity to point  
out that, contrary to certain fantasies:
 <http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/>
is a *note*, not a recommendation. Just one more distortion  
exaggerated into a crusade.

Which is *such* a good tag line!

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Saturday, 14 October 2006 20:35:44 UTC