Friday, January 20, 2006
[361] ß parallel discussion in “national debate” bead thread
This is part of a discussion
that will be moved to a Wiki page soon.
The Second School of Semantic Science, on
founding
[133] ß Judith Rosen’s recent
communication
Reply to Allen (BioPAX community)
Thank you Allen for your thoughtful communication. You are a leading member of the BioPAX working group, and are a participate in the Protégé OWL forum, so I know you are getting a lot of communications from me on subjects that are widely diversified.
The approach that the Second School is making is interdisciplinary. It looks to a metaphor that is certainly inline with what Judith Rosen has communicated about a set of similarities between social systems, organisms, cells, and gene expression.
There is so much about your communication that I appreciate a great deal. The bcngroup glass bead games have been designed as a new way to allow a type of distributed vetting of essential questions of scientific merit. But so far, this concept of a glass bead game is only prototyped by what my group has done so far.
In my summary of your communication, I would say that you point out a number of truths. OWL has wonderful properties that when properly and clearly understood will do many wonderful things. I certainly agree whole-heartedly to this point.
In my opinion, what BioPAX is doing is leading the way to a use paradigm that has been able to acquire an objective view of what OWL does when used in the best way. This means that some of the promises that are stated by some proponents of the Semantic Web are understood to be over statements.
But let us not go into the issue of overstatement.
I am learning a great deal by listening in the BioPAX working group discussion while studying the new OASIS WSML (Web service Modeling Language), WSML and the some eBusiness standards work called SOA IM (Service Oriented Architecture Information Model).