- From: Leonid Ototsky <leo@mgn.ru>
- Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:58:54 +0500
- To: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- CC: "SW-forum" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "West, Matthew" <matthew.west@shell.com>
Hans, Your concern is very close to mine ! Suppose even if to narrow the problem only to ERP2ERP communications with radical shortening of taking part the "slow and error-prone" human factor and only to the Product topic there must be done a new breakthrough in the topic. Some directions I mentioned in the "To keep abreast of the 21st Century" paper - http://www.ototsky.mgn.ru/it/21abreast.htm . Later I "provided" only one mentioned topic. Namely a using the Viable System Model (VSM) of Stafford Beer as Upper Ontology for future IT. See the Metaphorum-2005 and Metaphorum-2006 presentations - http://www.ototsky.mgn.ru/it/abroad_menu.html Some directions are pointed out for the Metaphorum-2007 presentation - http://www.ototsky.mgn.ru/it/papers/metaphorum2007.pdf . Suppose it is good to think beyond the current SW activity to a next generation of the Intellectual Web. Best, Leonid Ototsky - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it > Folks, > > In this context I would like to bring up something that keeps puzzling me. > > The W3C Semantic Web Activity Statement [1] starts with: > > "The goal of the Semantic Web initiative is as broad as that of > the Web: to create a universal medium for the exchange of data. It > is envisaged to smoothly interconnect personal information > management, enterprise application integration, and the global > sharing of commercial, scientific and cultural data. Facilities to > put machine-understandable data on the Web are quickly becoming a > high priority for many organizations, individuals and communities." > > This is great, and it is what we strive for. But it is puzzling > how this can ever be achieved without a universal, generic, > data-driven model and standard data to drive that model. What I see > happening is that everybody can and often does invent instances of > owl:Class and owl:ObjectProperty on-the-fly, and then seems to > expect that DL will be the band-aid that solves all integration > problems. In order to assist the reasoners all sorts of > qualifications are added (re OWL1.1), but to me it seems that when > this is done, actually a (rather private) data model is created > again. > > Above statement envisages the "smooth interconnection" of a > plethora of totally different application domains. That is wise, > because we live in one integrated universe (domain), and nobody can > dictate where one subdomain stops and the other begins. Hence the > need for a universal model as a common denominator. But it is > striking that the word "interconnection" was used, rather than > "integration". Interconnection reminds me of EAI [2], so hub-based > or point-to-point, where Semantic Web integration (as I understand > it) involves a web-based distributed data base. > > Keeping in mind that, as I wrote before in this thread, > application systems store a lot of implicit data (or actually don't > store them), the direct mapping of their data to the SW formats will > cause more problems than its solves. They are based on their own > proprietary data model, and these are unintelligible for other, > equally proprietary, data models. > > The thing puzzling me is how the SW community can see what I > cannot see, and that is how on earth you can achieve what your > Activity Statement says, without such a standard generic data model > and derived standard reference data (taxonomy and ontology). But > perhaps not many SW-ers bother about the need of universal > integration, and are happily operating within their own subdomain, > such as FOAF. > > Can anybody enlighten me, at least by pointing to some useful links? > > Regards, > Hans > > PS The above does not mean that I have no faith in the SW. On the > contrary, I preach the SW gospel. But I just want to understand > where it is moving to. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Application_Integration > > ____________________ > OntoConsult > Hans Teijgeler > ISO 15926 specialist > Netherlands > +31-72-509 2005 > www.InfowebML.ws > hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/708 - Release Date: 02-Mar-07 16:19 -- Ñ óâàæåíèåì, Leonid mailto:leo@mgn.ru
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2007 18:59:00 UTC