|From:||"Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:51:33 -0400|
Good question. Somehow a conceptually simpler system has to emerge from all those bits and pieces.
My guess is that, in the long term, a 'clean' rule language, together with a means for automatically generating SQL and SPARQL from the rules, will help, while some other bits and pieces are retired because they are not much used.
Neither SQL nor SPARQL have a fully formal semantics, but this inconvenient truth can be hidden under a rule language that does have a rigorous model theory, by means of painstaking design of the generator.
Cheers, -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com Shared use is free
On 8/2/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
Okay let me rephrase
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] unifying layer ?, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Logic As Formal Semiotic, Deborah MacPherson|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] unifying layer ?, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] unifying layer ?, Pat Hayes|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|