I hold both John Sowa and Kingsley Idehen in very high regard, but this
thread really touches a nerve. It's like arguing the merits of different
brands of trucks as an 18-wheeler careens toward children walking across
a street. (01)
The number of people (and businesses) who can benefit directly and
substantively from such massive database processing is tiny. It's a
"solution" for those who benefit economically from processing massive
amounts of data. It's trickle-down techno-economics. (02)
Better logic and higher processing speed may generate income for a few
billion-dollar businesses in the same way that large oil companies apply
new technologies to squeezing the last drops of oil out of depleted oil
fields, but they do not generate new value. People do. (03)
Semantic strategies and a broad spectrum of technologies that enable us
to contribute more effectively to the organizations in which we
participate (as well as to our personal bottom lines) and enable us to
interact more effectively with our information-shrouded realities are
more important than the processing of massive amounts of data. (04)
Getting the right data and/or creating it incrementally in a
**meaningful form** and connecting it **directly** with the creation of
value is the more important problem. That's what will generate
persistent contributions to the efficiency, competitiveness, and
sustainable growth of knowledge-based businesses. (05)
Phil Murray (06)
---------------------
The Semantic Advantage
Turning Information into Assets
phil.murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:phil.murray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
401-247-7899
Blog: http://semanticadvantage.wordpress.com
Web site: http://www.semanticadvantage.com (07)
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> Mills,
>>
>> Thanks for the note. I have sent notes to this forum and others
>> saying that Google does not use RDF and triple stores. This is
>> the reason why: they found a better way.
>>
>> There is a fundamental principle that Don Knuth and others
>> emphasized over 40 years ago:
>>
>> Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
>>
>> The strategy of using triples for RDF and OWL was based on
>> the mistaken idea that a triple store is more efficient than
>> a relational database or other notations. But there are
>> many publications on the WWW that show other representations
>> that are more efficient. But people didn't believe them.
>> Perhaps articles like this will convince them.
>>
>> MD>This could be significant:
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135726/Yale_researchers_create_data
>> base_Hadoop_hybrid?taxonomyId=9
>>
>> Yes, indeed. And that article points to others that discuss
>> the issue further:
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9121278/Google_claims_MapReduce_sets
>> _data_sorting_record_topping_Yahoo_conventional_databases
>>
>> This article points out that the same technology was used to
>> sort one terabyte of data in 68 seconds.
>>
>> And this example is just today's latest and greatest. There is
>> always somebody with a bright idea just around the corner who
>> will find an even better algorithm. The fundamental principle
>> is that you should never distort your logical representation to
>> fit a specific physical representation. That was the basis for
>> the ANSI/SPARC three-schema approach to databases in 1978, and
>> it's just as sound today as it was then.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
> John,
>
>
> Please digest:
>
>
> Virtuoso is an multi-model DBMS engine.
>
> And when it comes to MapReduce we believe and can prove that the hybrid
> approach is better.
>
> MapReduce disregards DBMS technology innovations inappropriately, and
> the Linked Data Web is how some of this will ultimately crystallize.
>
> You **shouldn't** need a data center the size of an airport to play
> ball on the Web :-)
>
> Links:
>
> 1. http://delicious.com/kidehen/virtuoso_whitepaper - Collection of
> White Papers addressing these matters
> 2. http://delicious.com/kidehen/sparql_benchmark - SPARQL benchmarks
> which show RDF Views over SQL as optimal when the Schema is "Closed
> World" oriented.
>
>
>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|