Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com>, xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:53:10 -0600
Yes, and that is a matter of degree. At
every step of this, we commit to trusting
the system we are using, in other words,
reliability of source and means of inference.
But that's ok. We test it until we trust
it. Free form text is tough because all
we have is text analysis (something for
which, if the domain of discourse is
identified, the ontology while not
ideal, is fit). Given an XML for an
RFP, things are better because we know
where to look for what. Remember, this
isn't a universal; it is a local politic
of communication, but perhaps we should
just say, it is a protocol.
In the oldeCALSDaze, we talked about
Product/Process/Organization as interrelated
domains to define a project.
So I need assertions for products, processes
to develop and manage the development of
products, and organizational models for
policies to control the processes. A service
model provides a registry of keys by which
I discover that some site services a domain.
I gave examples of how the RFP process has
to at the outset, analyze the communication
and determine characteristics related to
a request for features of a product such that
by this one can respond with one of four basic
responses, plus detect any "universals" that
must be filtered to prevent complications.
You wanted usable examples. This one has
the virtue of having been explored in detail
with lots and lots of government and industry
capital. PDES, CALS, all of these initiatives
had similar overlapping goals. Like HyTime,
they try to tell the whole megillah, and so
are a little complex. On the other hand,
subsets (just as HTML as GenCoding works),
work and can be readily grokked.
Take a layer at at time. Look at UDDI, for example,
as the schema by which the first layer
of communication is defined, then successively
peel off each layer below that. Remember,
once you start the communication, it isn't a
serial process. It is highly parallel and
has many aspects of real time control. One
issue is rollback can't be as granular and
that leads to how coarse can a transaction
be. I am drifting away from ontology, but
to me, again, ontology is just another
record of authority, a document type, to
be processed as a means to make communications
coherent over some time/event distance.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Sean B. Palmer [mailto:email@example.com]
> We can't entirely put away natural language. In fact, we'd be
> hard pressed to give a closed definition for "natural language".
> If you can create an RDF from the web pages, you can do it
> from other texts. The formality and structure of the texts make
> a difference of degree.
Well, yes. But you can only extract RDF from Web pages if they are really
well marked up. It relies on the semantics of XHTML, not the semantics of
the natural language contained within XHTML. I've felt the sting of this
problem myself , i.e. .
<sigh/> it would be so much easier if we could just add RDF to XHTML...