[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Just a fuzzy thought:
The notion of static vs. dynamic in regards to ontologies reminds me
roughly of this notion as applied to static vs. dynamic Web services.
That is, a static representation of the characteristics of a Web service
(e.g. WSDL document) vs. a dynamic choreography involving multiple Web
services (the Web Services process/choreography work going on now in W3C
and OASIS). Not sure if there's even a remote parallel to be found, but
just thought I'd throw it out there...
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
"Roger L. Costello" wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I think it is clear that except for trivial, academic cases RDF Schema
> and OWL do not have the robustness to capture the dynamically changing
> nature of real-world semantics. To do so, we must go beyond these
> ontology languages.
>
> I have compiled a somewhat random (chaotic) list of statements which I
> feel expresses much of what has been discussed:
>
> - Ontology languages such as RDF Schema and OWL provide the ability to
> *statically* capture semantic relationships.
>
> - Semantics is constantly changing. All of life is constantly
> changing. In fact, change is the only constant.
>
> - Capturing in an ontology constant change would require massive,
> full-time ontology maintenance.
>
> - The Zen art of mindfulness teaches how to see life (and change) as it
> really is by being "here and now".
>
> - The technology equivalent to the Zen art of mindfulness *may* be to
> continuously sample communications. That is, keep up with evolving
> semantics by continuously sampling real communications. Then apply
> heuristic and statistical techniques to deduce semantics.
>
> This table attempts to contrast what ontologies provides today vice
> what is required:
>
> Ontology Beyond Ontologies
> -----------------------------------------------
> Equilibrium, stability, Structure, pattern,
> static, deterministic self-organization
> dynamics
>
> Identical resources Resources separate
> and different
>
> Relationships are subtypes Relationships are
> and synonyms patterns and possibilities
>
> No real dynamics in the Semantics is constantly
> sense that everything is coalescing, decaying,
> statically, declaratively changing
> expressed
>
> Sees subject as Sees subject as inherently
> structurally simple complex
>
> Semantics as graphs Semantics as high-complexity
> science
>
> Comments? /Roger
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
begin:vcard
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard
|
