Ed, (01)
I agree with most of your response to my remark, with the exception
of one sentence. (02)
JFS>> DL is just one of a large number of logic-based technologies
>> that produce useful results for certain kinds of problems.
>> Unfortunately, people are being forced to use OWL for tasks
>> that it was never designed to do. They go through contortions
>> that make Perl look like the epitome of structured elegance. (03)
EB> I fully agree. Part of that is the silver bullet mentality:
> OWL is the best technology available; so whatever contortion you
> have to perform to use it is the best you could have done. And
> we are both familiar with the software engineer's pride of
> accomplishment in building a Rube Goldberg device to solve a
> problem that would be a simple application of a technology he
> is unfamiliar with. But we have made progress -- it is not
> a primitive AI application coded in Fortran anymore. (04)
The point that I very strongly disagree with is that "OWL is
the best technology available." At VivoMind, we are delighted
when our competitors use OWL because we can translate their
sources to Prolog and get orders of magnitude improvement over
their "native" implementations. (05)
But for heavy-duty lifting (gigabytes and terabytes) we would
never dream of using RDF or OWL. Those languages are hopelessly
inadequate for truly massive volumes of data. Just note that
Google doesn't use those languages. They know better. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|