John, (01)
I would say that I completely agree with you that for large volume
transaction based systems, OWL or RDF are hopeless from a performance
perspective. That said, I think that OWL 2 is a great language for basing
your model to ensure formalism in the development of the domain of interest,
but then you need to hand it off to another reasoning approach. (02)
There is no perfect ONE language, including Prolog, to approach most real
world, real time reasoning. In our experience, the best performance and
logic come from assembling a suite of tools that can work together in an
orchestrated services platform. There are some problems I want to address
using DL or regression analysis, others with classification and still others
with backward chaining. Some tools are better for each of these and I think
the best systems use them in concert. (03)
Cecil (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 12:27 AM
To: edbark@xxxxxxxx
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology-based database integration (05)
Ed, (06)
I agree with most of your response to my remark, with the exception
of one sentence. (07)
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. (08)
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. (09)
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. (010)
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. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|