- From: Johan Hjelm <johan.hjelm@era-t.ericsson.se>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:26:52 +0900
- To: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- CC: Stuart Naylor <indtec@eircom.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3ADA3C4C.B3CA0E4B@era-t.ericsson.se>
I hate to say this over and over, but CC/PP is exactly what you describe: A metadata framework for agent description. In the WAP context (since they are the only ones to develop a metadata vocabulary, they are the only ones we know about) it works exactly as you describe: The profile of the client is matched against the profile on the server (that for instance describes the document). Johan Danny Ayers wrote: > Interesting stuff - I would have thought if communications/semantics could > sorted out for legal systems then anything is possible! > > Anyhow, your mention of the mini-service technologies (Jini etc) struck a > chord with me. I've been wandering around this area myself, and have come to > the conclusion that probably the easiest approach, going with the flow of > recent developments, is to move everything possible from the inference > engine/agent side of things into the metadata area. The immediate benefit is > that the engines/agents themselves can be more generic, their context being > taken from the metadata on which they operate. The particular implementation > of the advertising/discovery mechanisms becomes irrelevant - anything that > can play metadata can join in. If a reasonable amount of metadata can be > extracted/generated/written about an agent, then the first stages of > negotiation between one agent and another are nothing more than a > pattern-matching excercise between two sets of metadata, needing little more > sophistication than e.g. LDAP style directory services. The benefits go > further - by abstracting out the description of the agent, it pulls it > across into the same domain as other data or active entities (reifies?) so > that the agent itself because just another thing that can be reasoned about. > > <- So here goes for my theoretical XML protocol ‘Chinwag’ the purpose of > <- Chinwag is to allow two bodies to have a discourse to ascertain there > <- relevance and have no need of any formal industry specific XML structure. > > Relating this to your description of Chinwag, finding the coarse-grained > compatibility/relevance of the two bodies is trivial, as metadata about each > will be available. There is the formality of having a common metadata > format, but I think some common language would be necessary in any case. The > coarse-grained matching comes cheap, and less resources are needed to check > relevance and initiate discourse at a more domain-specific level. > > I've recently put this idea forward in the form of a practical proposal for > profiling processes (including agents) but it looks like this idea is going > to languish in the wilderness, and the hole be filled in a different fashion > (perhaps with a less-appropriately shaped peg). Who cares? - we'll get the > Semantic Web and its descendents before long, one way or another. > > --- > Danny Ayers > http://www.isacat.net > > <- -----Original Message----- > <- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > <- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stuart Naylor > <- Sent: 13 April 2001 17:04 > <- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > <- Subject: Zen & Chinwag > <- > <- > <- (This was for LegalXML.Org but please comment) > <- > <- There seems to be quite a lot of movement in RPC calls for > <- devices. I posted > <- quite a lot of bumf to the discussion forum Keywords: - Jini, UDDI, SOAP, > <- UPnP and their surrounding technologies. > <- Which even if you don’t agree with what I am about to say they are will > <- worth a look in the context of LegalXML. > <- Also there seems to be a lot of postings about TBL's Semantic Web AKA Net > <- Gods tenth commandment. The web was there to some extent before TBL and I > <- prefer to think of him as the gardener rather than the creator. This is > <- because the web has this strange but almost organic growth to > <- it. I see the > <- Semantic web as a great prophesy to provide the next generation > <- of the web > <- as a huge monolithic open knowledge service. It tackles the web > <- as a whole > <- as opposed to many of the above technologies, which make it a > <- collection of > <- many mini services. I also think that he is correct but like so > <- many of the > <- devout they can take things out of context. > <- The Semantic web will be a revolution to creating a huge open knowledge > <- store with the emphasis on open. In the context of Legal though > <- I would say > <- without trying to offend anyone this is not the case. > <- Intellectual property > <- rights and the whole concept of legal jargon, precedents and so on places > <- two legal bodies always in the position where any exchange is the minimum > <- legal requirement to satisfy both parties. As you will tell I > <- have no legal > <- experience what so ever but I would so the interchange of legal > <- information > <- is anything but Semantic and Open. May be someone would like to > <- quantify how > <- wrong I am there, but anyway. What I believe is that business > <- information is > <- not Semantic at least not until we have been paid for it. > <- I started knocking TBL on purpose because I am now going to have > <- a go at the > <- very idea of LegalXML in its present form. Please bear in mind that these > <- statements are purely to form a discussion and without a doubt > <- TBL does have > <- green fingers just like the work that has been undertaken by > <- LegalXML.org. > <- There seems to be a presumption that a given Legal scenario for example a > <- court filing will be able to be expressed in a defined > <- structure. That Legal > <- XML will lay down the protocol law and as long as we adhere we will reach > <- communication Nirvana. This provides problems with the freedom > <- of speech of > <- applications where an application may find a better method of > <- expression but > <- have no method of translation. > <- I don’t want to try and express the meaning of life but I am > <- quite prepared > <- to say I had a good day. Like that sentence we need systems that > <- can provide > <- a decomposition of an entity into what we are prepared to exchange. > <- > <- What would be interesting is not only at a B2B scenario that applications > <- themselves would interact just as we do. It’s our first day and > <- we get the > <- instructions there is the accounts dept, photocopier, your desk, > <- tea break > <- at 10.30, goodbye. > <- > <- In one of my previous emails about John McClure’s > <- http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml I stated I couldn’t > <- understand it’s use, but I have seen the light. > <- > <- So here goes for my theoretical XML protocol ‘Chinwag’ the purpose of > <- Chinwag is to allow two bodies to have a discourse to ascertain there > <- relevance and have no need of any formal industry specific XML structure. > <- > <- When we give two applications there first day at work they need to how > <- relevant they are and how they will communicate so the only formal > <- constructs of Chinwag are WHORU, IAM, and THISISME. > <- > <- The legal case management app and accounts app are introduced a > <- polite pause > <- and the legal case management app goes first ‘WHORU’. > <- > <- ‘IAM’ financial [parents: #Legal, #App Vendor Semantic] GL, Billings… > <- ‘IAM’ cms [parents: #Legal, #App Vendor Semantic] Client, Case, PIM… > <- > <- John and http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml I now see as > <- very important because of the following: - > <- > <- possession [parents: #Right , #Legal ] The holding, control, or > <- custody of > <- property for one's own use, either as the owner or person with another > <- right. > <- possession [parents: #Poltergeist, #Supernatural] The holding, > <- control, or > <- custody of one, either as the owner or person without right. > <- > <- Pure example stuff but this is where TBL’s Semantics comes in where it is > <- the web itself as like the DNS (Domain Name System) the hops or metrics > <- between those two means the application can deduce that maybe, > <- similar but > <- your coming from Alaska on that one. > <- > <- The next conversation is ‘THISISME’ at this point a full API call list is > <- presented with the XML fragment that represents the return data > <- but the most > <- important is a by element reference to its own application definition. > <- Through the context of Semantics and the approximation of definitions a > <- protocol can be deduced without the need of formal schema declaration. > <- > <- I am working on ‘Chinwag’ at this moment the actual protocol is > <- very simple > <- but it is the AI required for a demonstration. So far I have dissected a > <- ‘Chess’ AI engine because I am trying to enable the functionality for > <- scenario’s where a single API call will not satisfy a transaction but a > <- series of calls (moves in my case) will. > <- > <- So it’s Pawns away for me at the moment but I think John McClure’s > <- DCD100.xml is a very interesting proposition but instead of > <- describing human > <- Legal keywords provide context, taxonomy of the components of legal > <- entities. I believe LegalXML should be defining the elements in > <- context but > <- not the structure. > <- > <- I know the meaning of life it’s 42, the problem is what is the question. > <- -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Johan Hjelm, Senior Specialist Ericsson Research Japan Read more about my recent book http://www.wireless-information.net ************************************
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 20:23:41 UTC