Re: [regrep-semantic] RE: Charter and vision of SC (Was Re: [regrep-semantic] Blurb about SCM Work (For Interview))

[ewallace@cme.nist.gov]

Jeff Pollock wrote:

>I greatly appreciate your explanation of the process, and where you see this 
>effort in it. I look forward to the next several months and plan to carve out 
>some more time from NI to articulate a technical position as to how our 
>reasoner (or others) could potentially interface with an SCM enabled 
>repository with OWL/RDF bindings.

Cool

>Is the best vehicle a use case, or a series of proposals on this thread?

You seemed to mention multiple use cases in your previous mail.  That would 
probably be the best way to present the functionalities you think could be 
supported by a Semantic repository closely tied with OWL.  Then, separately 
you could describe the architecture needed to support those use cases.

BTW - Like the chairs, I felt we were still sharing visions for where
SCM might go.  We may have jumped the gun a little bit by talking about 
the costs entailed by some of those visions.  These cost discussions 
shouldn't be interpreted as closing the floor to alternate ideas about where 
we are going and how to get there.  In my view, we need to widely explore 
the alternatives *and* their costs before committing to any particular 
alternative(s).  

-Evan