From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 09/18/02
From: "Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston)" <ora.lassila@nokia.com> Subject: Re: Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 17 September Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:02:59 -0400 > Related to our discussion yesterday about including/importing: I wanted to > stress the fact that although things like complete reasoning are different > from things like whether some file can be accessed at some particular time > on the web, we (the Joint Committee) should be designing our things > (representation languages, query languages, rule languages, etc.) in such a > manner that the nasty eventualities of the web can be dealt with. > > If we do not take the architecture and the realities of the World Wide Web > into account, we are not doing anything really new. Then our work becomes > "just" KR. And furthermore, I believe that in order for us to be successful > in furthering the Semantic Web, dealing with these details is a strong > requirement. > > I am not suggesting that we fully immerse ourselves in the problems and > issues of distributed, asynchronous systems and communication protocols, but > I am suggesting that whatever we do has to make life with distributed > processing easier. Given that our stuff gets built and lives on top of many > earlier web standards, we can take full advantage of these if we expose some > of their features (HTTP caching rules for example come to mind). > > I'll get off the soapbox now... > > - Ora Well, my viewpoint is that it is sufficient to 1/ not require committing to information from other ontologies unless an explicit directive so stating is present 2/ behave reasonably when referenced documents (or other resources, such as computing resources) cannot be found, or accessed, or are unresponsive, probably by continuing reasoning but not labelling results as complete. The first is a matter of the logic, the second has more to do with interface design. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 09/18/02 EDT