Re: [xtm-wg] For a general formalism of the semantic web - for more patient and formal work

["Bernard Vatant" <universimmedia@wanadoo.fr>]

Robert

*You* spoke of "big unified theory". I never mentioned it. I don't care for
Unifying Theory for the sake of it, I care for unifying tools.
It's a local concern, not a global one. And if you read closely what I can
write here and there about ontologies and such, you'll see that I'm scared
to death by Great Unification attempts. I did not capitalize. You did. I
just considered unifying all that is waiting for the right tool to be
unified : many developments - of which Topic Maps and XTM and RDF are just
some - have an implicit graph structure. Making that structure explicit,
based on strong existing mathematical tools, is what I'm up to. Physics is
not unified, I know that, and am happy with it, but both Quantum Mechanics
and General Relativity or whatever Unameit-Dynamics use algebra and calculus
and such. Mathematics are more or less unified too, but they are a very
powerful interoperating tool. One of the best ones I know so far, just
behind music :o)
I'm really amazed, to say the least, by those arguments about complexity of
use. Thousands of people keep learning in just no time Java and Perl and C++
and other incredibly non-obvious stuff I just don't dare try to understand -
IMO far more complex and far less intuitive to learn than graphs. Gads!
Maths are far simpler than any of those weirds syntaxes you find all around!
My plea for unification is not for the sake of some metaphysical quest. It's
just : stop to engulf energy in everchanging approximative tools. "Simpler
more effective than correct ?". I see neither simplicity, neither
effectiveness so far. Everybody has developed the "simplest" thing for one's
immediate needs and short business view, and OK some have engulfed megabucks
with that, and look at the mess they have put the world in : here we are
struggling in that jungle of evergrowing standards and languages and
syntaxes ...
Next century ? Definitely not. We're speaking about NOW. The situation is
complex, and we can't hope to get out of it with simple solutions and
continuous "bricolage" ...

If I look like on the nerves, it's maybe I've wasted my yesterday formatting
and restoring my system. Has that to do with the above ? Just guess ...

Cheers

Bernard

----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Robert Barta" <rho@bigpond.net.au>
À : <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2001 11:08
Objet : Re: [xtm-wg] For a general formalism of the semantic web - for more
patient and formal work


> Bernard Vatant wrote:
> > Do you think Newton should have stopped war with Leibniz about calculus,
> > saying "well, forget it, there will never be more than a few dozen
people
> > understanding that stuff anyway".
>
> That war lasted half a century.
>
> > > 4) all specifications of the semantic web manipulates the same kind of
> > basic
> > > objects. Each specification has specialized some objects for their
> > specific
> > > need (ontology, index, complex document set...) and create their own
> > syntax
>
> Oh, oh, I smell something like the "big unified theory", "Weltformel".
> Even if it existed, it would be pretty useless. The world follows the
> 20:80 rule:
>
>    20% of the effort for 80% of the effect.
>
> In other words: There will never, ever be a single theory.
>
> In astrophysics we do our trajectories with Newton, but explain
> solar activities with quantum-chromodynamics. Two considerable different
> (and even conflicting) theories.
>
> > > 9) I don't mean there is not specific issue processing a TM (as it has
a
> > > complex and rich structure) - I mean that it is important to have a
basic
> > > formalism to talk about the basic components of the semantic web,
shared by
> > > all the specifications.......
>
> > > 11) the process may seem a little to long to some of us ..
>
> Shall we meet in the next century and check out how far we got? ;-)
>
> > > 12) I see a lot of argument against a formal description using the
concept
> > > of graph theory that say : I will not understand it, so I will  not
use it,
> > > so it is not useful.
>
> Having myself quite some formal training, I have learned the 'Internet
> lesson'
> (or at least what I think it is):
>
>    "Better simple than correct."
>
> Not only helped it to build big businesses (no names, M$) but it
> provided
> people (millions of authors) a 'transition path'. If we start up with
> anything
> more complicated than a kitchen-sink than it will not take off.
>
> Before the web there have been far better technical info-systems, not
> suffering
> from broken links: symmetric hyperlink systems, automatic integration
> of multimedia, payment integrated. They were too complicated for the
> authors.
>
> \rho
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/