RE: &

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I think that taking the time necessary to do the job(s) right is well 
worth some frustration. I don't mean to suggest it, since it is 
already the case anyway, but having our effort proceed on several 
paths at once is a good idea. We have s load of language-building 
tasks and we have a load of network interoperability tasks which 
include the necessity of staying in the forefront object negotiation 
across platforms, legacy databases and, and on and on.

Ciao,
Rex

At 3:09 AM +0300 8/27/01, Emmanuil M. Batsis wrote:
>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:cagle@olywa.net]
>
>>  I think we also have to be careful of discerning what is in the domain of
>>  HumanML and what is not. Musicology is a fascinating area of discussion, but
>>  is it something that specifically needs to be a part of HumanML?
>
>I think not. Of course, the way I see it, a "musicology" module 
>would pe a presentetional
>module, not a "knowledge" one. Thus IMHO fals into something a 
>HumanML adopter might wanna
>geti into but that's just it.
>
>
>>  I know I'm bucking some of the work that has been done earlier, but my sense
>>  of the direction of things at the moment is that we are trying to work at
>>  too high a level.
>
>Agreed. But isn;t this what we are trying to achieve? Work out the 
>low level model for an
>adopter to be taking it as transparent, unless he wants to mess with 
>it. Theoretically we
>are doing fine on this higher level... but things are far more complicated.
>
>For example, we are talking about a future taxonomy framework. Under 
>what model will this
>be constructed and structured? What mechanisms should we use? How 
>are we going to register
>class/topic relationships? Are going to create RDF extensions to use for
>building/proccessing this model (meaning the taxonomies)? If we  do, 
>we will have to study
>what's available first. And of course, there are some considerations 
>that will have to be
>treated seriously. For starters, to solve the above problems, we 
>will have to study
>current approaches and available technology. And we also have to 
>keep interoperability in
>mind.
>
>The way I see it, the taxonomy framework will surelly use the 
>following technologies as a
>base: RDF(S), XML namespaces, XLink(RDDL?). RDF(S) for the 
>classes/metadata, XML
>namespaces to organise it and make it usefull (i really had 
>underestimated namespaces in
>the past) and XLink to provide additional/relative/alternative 
>resources. Just a note:
>latelly, I have abandoned the idea of using XML instead of RDF 
>because of RDF's well
>defined model (or graph if you preffer, please check [1] if you 
>don't know what I'm
>talking about).
>Other XML technologies/initiatives involved in this knowledge over 
>the web thingy are XML
>Topic Maps (XTM)[2], DARPA's DAML+OIL[3] and others I may have no clue about.
>There's also the W3C Web Ontology group (this will get public in a 
>few months, they'll use
>DAML+OIL as a base).
>
>What I want to get to is, we should really take this slowly. We have 
>some great ideas and
>perspectives, but we can't just rush it. We will have to study what 
>is available to decide
>the basis of our framework (because that's where we are heading to, 
>a framework not a
>language) and then build upon it.
>
>Maybe Sean could give us a clue or two, about how DAML+OIL 
>extensions could help us at
>this point. I would also like to refine the namespaces framework, as 
>it will be used by
>machines to understand what a document is about (via RDFS). I also 
>suspect that the RDF
>Schemata repository will get so big and the that local schema use 
>will have to be
>promoted, by establishing an automated versioning/mirroring system. 
>Maybe I'm wrong on
>this though.
>
>>  Just my two cents worth, and as I've said before, I'm
>>  still trying to come to grips with the fairly significant amount of work
>>  that has been done thus far.
>
>That's what we all have to do, meaning third party work.
>
>>  I'll sit down and be quiet
>  > now <grin/>.
>
>Please don't!
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html
>[2] http://www.topicmaps.org
>[3] http://www.daml.org/
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Manos
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request