W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Weakness in the Semantic Web?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 02:09:27 +0200
To: "Frank Manola <fmanola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF795E284B.BC7087C3-ONC1256D1C.0000CDA0-C1256D1C.0000DF3C@agfa.be>

You couldn't be more right Frank ;-)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    Frank Manola                                                                                          
                    <fmanola@mitre.org>         To:     "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>                          
                    Sent by:                    cc:     www-rdf-interest@w3.org                                           
                    www-rdf-interest-requ       Subject:     Re: Weakness in the Semantic Web?                            
                    2003-05-04 01:57 AM                                                                                   

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


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
> /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 20:09:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:42 UTC