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

[Robert Barta <rho@bigpond.net.au>]

Bernard Vatant wrote:
> *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.

And that's exactly where I am sceptic about. Unifying tools imply
unified
concepts. And this only works in a monopoly situation. Not even then,
actually. I, for myself, am prepared to live in a multi-technical world.

> 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. 

I have now about a year experience in teaching Topic Maps to students.
>From 100 students about 80 are capable of understanding the concepts,
about 20 are able to create something based on it.

And, I'm using Perl for years and would NOT claim that I really
understand
it. Somehow brilliant language, it is, highly non-orthogonal, twisted.
Just as language designers would NOT do it.

> 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 ...

:-) A bit, but as an IT person I know exactly what you are talking
about.

OK, back to work.

\rho

> ----- 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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/