- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:38:51 -0500
- To: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 9:17 AM -0500 12/7/01, Leo Obrst wrote: >A question I have: under which use case is conceptual search? I too had >posted this as a use case, but am not sure where it falls. > >Thanks, >Leo In creating my categories I had this one falling in collection/archives, but only because I figured in the short term any sort of conceptual search mechanism was likely to be restricted to a particular domain or collection -- but you are the folks making the decisions as to how to ground out the various use cases Also, I should note that not every use case needs to fit neatly in one category. These were collected to give us organizational structure and some examples - I don't think there's an intent to be complete in any respect, as that would likely be impossible. If I take off my chair's hat of neutrality for a minute, I'd say that I see the following as critical differentiators 1) Collection Mgt - can assume there is a fixed set of sources at some moment in time, that it is relatively finite (although possibly large) and probably domain restricted in some way. Focus is on the "metadata" helping to manage the documents/resources in the archive/collection - consistency/computability of some kind seems desirable. 2) Interoperability - I assume here many heterogeneous sources, probably challenging any assumption of closure and/or decidability - the closure over the data descriptions could be all data on the web -- clearly too large to worry about issues like decidability (even polynomial is not good enough when your N is in the billions) and probably impossible to provide anything other than local consistencies. We need to make sure we can live/compute with this 3) Web Services - as well as the usual business case (i.e. people see $billions in this) the challenge of web services to ontologies seem to me to come in the fact that we need to describe/represent processes and activities - not the usual "nouns" what we think about in the class hierarchies of RDFS. WIll the expressivity of DAML+OIL give us enough power to do this? Are there other constructs we may need to consider informed by previous work in UML, in Agent Communication Languages (ACLs) and in the various FIPA use cases? 4) WOL requirements - this group has a tough mission -- it needs to figure out a strong intersection of the needs above (not clear if the union would be doable, for example archive management might want to enforce global consistency while interop might require only some sort of local agreement). However, it also needs to figure out if there are things that span these areas, critical to all, but not necessarily likely to arise in any particular one -- a good example Jeff raised is versioning, which would be an important language feature for all of the above. -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 14:46:08 UTC