Re: Disappointment with all of you...

From: pat hayes (
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:
>>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 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?


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST