Re: What do the ontologists want

From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Subject: Re: What do the ontologists want
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 03:42:08 +0100

> "pat hayes" <mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:-
> 
> > magically universal, due to the Power of Reification
> 
[...]

> But yes, I agree with what you say about separating the hype from the
> programming. Clearly, if the syntax isn't universal, then the
> semantics built on top of the model are difficult to get from A to B -
> it's the same old language manifestation problem again.
> 
> However, DAML and other ontology/logic areas are providing insights,
> and I still think that the majority of the goals and ambitions set out
> in the SW roadmap [1], transformations, globally processable data, are
> not only possible, but have already started to appear. Yeah, the
> syntax is a pain, and even the model can lead to philosophical
> rat-holes, but the implementations will be forthcoming.

I find the amount of RDF that DAML+OIL uses to be quite instructive in this
regard.  DAML+OIL does not use reification, nor does it use containers.

> Clearly, I think that there are some of us who are in it purely for a
> theoretical exercise, and some of us in it just for the practical
> aspect. Unfortunately, sometimes it's difficult to do the latter
> without getting needlessly caught up in the former...

I would say this entirely differently.

I think that there are some of us who worry mostly about the theoretical
aspects of RDF, and some of us who worry mostly (solely) about the
practical aspects of RDF.  Unfortunately for the latter group, it is
impossible to have a web representation language without have the former
taken care of, all protestations of some in the latter group
notwithstanding.

> --
> Kindest Regards,
> Sean B. Palmer
> @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
> :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 07:18:38 UTC