Re: Weakness in the Semantic Web?

Response A:  I don't see how we can possibly respond to the message, 
since under the assumptions of the message, there needs to be universal 
agreement on the definitions of the words being used, and there isn't 
universal agreement, and certainly not in the context of this message, 
on the meaning of "weakness", "Semantic Web", "definitions", or 
"process" (among other things).

Response B:  It seems to me lots of processes (and I'm talking about 
software processes here, not human processes) will get along just fine 
with less than total agreement on the definitions of terms.  In 
particular, lots of processes get along just fine even though it may 
turn out that there are subtle differences in the definitions being 
assumed by the various parties;  maybe issues that would bring those 
differences to the surface just don't come up during that processing. 
Obviously we want to get common agreement on definitions.  But imagining 
the whole Semantic Web will break down if the agreements reached are 
less-than-perfect is, IMHO, more a rhetorical device than a serious 
argument.

--Frank

Roger L. Costello wrote:

> Hi Folks,
> 
> A colleague sent me the below message.  How would you respond to it?
> 
> 
>>... a weakness in the Semantic Web, which is to say that there 
>>needs to be universal agreement on definitions or the process 
>>breaks down.  Even if there is universal agreement at a point
>>in time, definitions will evolve and mutate, as in regular 
>>language. 
>>
> 
> /Roger
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Received on Saturday, 3 May 2003 19:40:06 UTC