- From: Bill Andersen <andersen@ontologyworks.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:23:39 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Ziv Hellman <ziv@unicorn.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On 16.05.2001 22:22 Uhr, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > pat hayes wrote: > [...] >> PS My apologies if this is leading too far from the original thread >> >> Not at all: I think you have put your finger right on the button. There is a >> mismatch between the reality and the rhetoric of RDF. As a general-purpose >> graph-structure-encoding formalism, it is just fine. (It has a truly awful >> surface syntax, but everyone agrees that is a crock and needs replacing.) But >> it hasnt been sold as that: it has been sold as a universal >> knowledge/information representation language, with a clear semantics which >> is both utterly simple (relational triples) and simultaneously universal, >> post-Goedelian, trans-Tarskian and magically universal, due to the Power of >> Reification. That is why it is going to be the, I don't know, the magical >> essence of the Semantic Web, and why W3C seems to be so committed to it. > > Oh for cryin out loud, Pat, just cut it out. Exactly > who is taking that position? Cite sources or retract it. Here are some.... 1) http://www.w3.org/RDF/FAQ - RDF metadata can be used in a variety of application areas; forexample: in resource discovery to provide better search engine capabilities; in cataloging for describing the content and content relationships available at a particular Web site, page, or digital library; by intelligent software agents to facilitate knowledge sharing and exchange; in content rating; in describing collections of pages that represent a single logical "document"; for describing intellectual property rights of Web pages, and in many others. 2) http://www.xml.com/pub/a/98/06/rdf.html - [Bill: RDF as "fancy index"] "This means that opinions, pointers, indexes, and anything that helps people 'look things up'. [Bill: RDF as "ontology" language?] "And even among people who are sharing the use of metadata vocabularies, there's no need to share the same software. RDF makes it possible to use multiple different pieces of software to process the same metadata, and to use a single piece of software to process (at least in part) many different metadata vocabularies." 3) http://www.sciam.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html - "In the next step, the Semantic Web will break out of the virtual realm and extend into our physical world. URIs can point to anything, including physical entities, which means we can use the RDF language to describe devices such as cell phones and TVs. Such devices can advertise their functionality‹what they can do and how they are controlled‹much like software agents. Being much more flexible than low-level schemes such as Universal Plug and Play, such a semantic approach opens up a world of exciting possibilities." I'm sure Pat can come up with many others. It's just not that hard. So, no need to retract... We always walk a fine line between building things that "work" and things that are right (or even adequate). I think Pat is arguing (in his own lovable way) that the pendulum has swung too far. Of course RDF will "work" one way or another. With all the hype and all the millions being thrown at it, how can it not? But that much volume only serves to drown out the voices of those who know better. Mob justice is no justice -- ten years from now we'll go through this all over again when we find out that RDF didn't "work" after all. .bill -- Bill Andersen Chief Scientist, Ontology Works 1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104 Odenton, Maryland, 21113 Mobile: 443-858-6444 Office: 410-674-7600
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 00:23:56 UTC