From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 04/25/01
>Daml PIs - > I just sent the following message to the www-rdf-logic list > >At 8:05 PM -0400 4/24/01, Jim Hendler wrote: >>Folks- >>we know a lot of you out there have been playing with DAML+OIL and >>building ontologies and/or playing w/instances. To make this >>easier, we created the DAML ontology repository and DAML crawler, >>Both can be accessed from http://www.daml.org/ and it is easy to >>submit pointers to new ontologies and/or to provide pointers to web >>pages to start the crawler. To date we have 112 ontologies, and >>the crawler as found about 12,000 DAML pages with over 1.2M DAML >>statements on them -- however, that number has been static for a >>while. If you are playing with DAML, these are useful tools and >>linking to them will help us build large sets of statements to play >>with -- so I just wanted to remind everyone this exists and to >>welcome your participation >>-Jim Hendler > >but now let me rephrase it to you folks -- the fact that we have not >had new ontologies added or new pages found by the crawler since the >last DAML meeting does not bode well for any of your continued >existence in this program!! If you're not using DAML - then go find >someone else to fund your work. If you are, make sure you are >letting us know about it by registering ontologies, or by creating >more DAML out there and linking you stuff to the web site. > Let me re-emphasize this -- if I somehow didn't make it clear in >the past that I want you to be creating ontologies/using DAML - then >here it is now. No DAML, no funds. As simple as that. Jim, I wish you would be consistent on this issue. When you were hectoring us for SOWs or SOIs or whatever the hell they were called, you were blue in the face that we WERENT supposed to be churning out DAML ontologies. I said I was going to work on translating some industrial-scale ontologies into DAML and you told me I hadnt been listening to you properly. Now a few weeks later you are threatening to cut off our balls unless we write more ontologies. I am left bewildered by what it is that you do want. As a small data point, for what its worth, Jeff Bradshaw's group here are trying to use DAML to create an ontology about agents /actions /permissions /obligations /policies and all that exciting stuff, and I'm trying to help them. They find it hard to believe, however, that anyone expects DAML to be taken seriously when you can't write rules in it. They use words like "unfinished" and "provisional". And I have to say, I see their point. What is the use of a language which only allows you to check a static inheritance heirarchy? There only are so many parts catalogs in the world that need to be on the Semantic Web, and even then the queries are going to involve some nontrivial inferences. They also ask, where are the DAML tools? They want authoring tools, parsers, inference engines, model-consistency checkers, translators and anything else they can get hold of, and they can't find them. What do YOU want to see most urgently, DAML or DAML tools? Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST