From: Gio Wiederhold (gio@db.stanford.edu)
Date: 04/10/02
Adam, Perhaps you did not get my comment? I feel quite strongly about the first point. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:37:04 PDT From: Gio Wiederhold <gio@Hake.Stanford.EDU> To: tim finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu> Cc: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>, daml-all@daml.org Subject: Re: ASSERTION, QUESTION, SUGGESTION In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 08 Apr 2002 15:08:16 -0400 Fcc: ./DAML/reports.m00 Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1018305424.gio@Hake.Stanford.EDU> Adam's example is great start. To convince DARPA's customers it would be nice to give an example from logistics, for instance one where similar part assemblies are needed in a system? In general, the motivation is to make E-commerce reliable, and move from browse, read, and paste to automation. Can the propery attribute help there? Btw., limiting expressive power is not a hindrance, if it doesn't limit the customer. Databases were successful largely because the relational model was simple and clear to its customers. When research databases added recursion it excited the academics, but did nothing much for the customers. I recall the VLDB paper that started "Since no-one can be his own father .. ". I sent the author a tape of the country jingle `He's his own Grampa .. which goes on telling how the son married the widder of the father, etc.'. One counterexample can kill any theorem ... . Gio >>>>>>>>>> Making examples that require extrapolation from what looks like a toy problem to the problems that our intended audience and funders are facing makes us look as we are playing in a private sandbox. Gio /Gio Wiederhold/ http://www-db.stanford.edu/people/gio.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/03 EST