- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:33:34 +0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
It may have appeared in the discussion before, but I'd like to know what chain of events (or culture) led a bunch of pretty savvy people to produce a recommendation that the logicians say has such a big hole in it that it might be totally useless (in the long term). --- Danny Ayers http://www.isacat.net <- -----Original Message----- <- From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org <- [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F. <- Patel-Schneider <- Sent: 10 April 2001 00:47 <- To: danny@panlanka.net <- Cc: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu; www-rdf-logic@w3.org <- Subject: in defense of lawyers - was RE: RDF semantics <- <- <- It is very fashionable to put down lawers (and, in this group, it also <- appears to be fasionable to put down logicians). However, legal training <- and experience is necessary to craft documents and agreements that will <- 1/ stand up in court, and 2/ not cause more problems than they solve. I <- view the situation with respect to representation as quite similar: It <- takes logical training and experience to craft representations and <- interfaces that will 1/ actually say and do what you want them <- to (when not <- helped along by human-level understanding), and 2/ not cause <- more problems <- later on than they solve now. <- <- Perhaps those of us who are arguing for logical sophistication have not <- been as explicit as we might in making our case. However, Drew, <- Pat, and I <- have seen firsthand the problems that can arise when logical precepts are <- ignored. (I have even seen such problems with respect to my own work.) <- <- All this is not to say that it is always necessary to take care <- of all the <- logical precepts in designing a representation system. There are many <- useful representation systems that are on shakey ground. However, such <- systems run into problems when they are used as components of other <- systems, or are used by people (or systems) beyond the initial <- core group, <- or are used in ways that were not envisioned or completely <- thought through <- by the initial core group. If you think that a web representation system <- that is supposed to form the basis of all semantic web work doesn't fit <- into any of these categories then you don't need a <- firmly-grounded system. <- If, on the other hand, [you can fill in this part] .... <- <- Peter F. Patel-Schneider <- Bell Labs Research <- <- <- From: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net> <- Subject: RE: RDF semantics: applications, formalism and education <- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:22:43 +0600 <- <- > Thanks for this - your description is very helpful. <- > <- > IANAL, and have been arguing from a point of view of <- considerable ignorance <- > of the actual problem (can you have a large quantity of <- something missing?), <- > but I worry when a lawyer/logician produces a bill - I prefer to see a <- > pretty clear cut case. Having said that, I really do hope it <- won't be long <- > before the community reaches for its chequebook, one way or another. <- > <- > I think I'd better do some more reading before I dig myself too big a <- > hole... <- > <- > --- <- > Danny Ayers <- > http://www.isacat.net <-
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 15:37:11 UTC