|From:||"Neil Custer" <neil.custer@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:10:30 -0500|
Thanks for the reply John.
You certainly raise valid and interesting points and I have no doubt that Google developers know what they are doing. I also certainly understand that any compiled data is going to be more compact in a binary format and as a result, much quicker to process as well. I will not argue that too many developers try to use XML as a "silver bullet"--there are certainly many, many applications that either process large volumes of data or are very time critical. In these cases the size of the data packages certainly must be clearly defined and compiled to be optimized for pure processing speed such as your colleague's telecom app.
A few additional thoughts:
Google developers are not building a Foundation Ontology on which they expect the rest of the knowledge representation world to base their work (at least that we know of at this time). If they are, perhaps they could share their insight with us...
Given the similarities in the two formats as posed in your original post, one could fairly easily build a conversion application that applies the rules for constructing .proto files from an .owl or .rdf file. Perhaps the central issue is the separation of the information from the structure. This would (in my limited experience of working with ontologies) be the equivalent of separating the instances from the knowledge representation structure. However, my limited experience with knowledge bases may be the source of my confusion here.
I've thought for a while that having instance values included in the structure of an ontology seemed an inefficient way to put an effective knowledge representation system together. In a somewhat simplified example, when using a relational database, one doesn't look at the database schema at the same time they look information filling the rows in tables. The only time they need to know the names of those tables and columns is when they are building queries, views, and reports.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that "the data descriptors should be logically accessible when needed, [AND] independent of their physical location." With the value of the knowledge representation structure at the heart of an ontology, the representation of a concept in the ontology needs to be clear to the user of the structure when a specific application of that knowledge is being tapped. That being the case, there should be a DOI or some other persistent identifier that a knowledge application builder can refer a concept to without having to pull an entire ontological structure (or even parts of it, necessarily) into their application.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:33 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Thing and Class, Christopher Spottiswoode|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class, Mike Bennett|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation Ontology, Patrick Cassidy|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|