Paola, (01)
That is indeed a concern: (02)
> I have sensed in person the trend toward the glorification of RDF
> over and beyond what it is (what I think it is anyway) That's
> because a lot of people bank on 'hype', scientists and researchers
> included (03)
I would say that it's not entirely hype, because there is definitely
a need for a widely used standard for representing and reasoning
about large volumes of data. XML is a very useful notation for
marking the data in web pages. However, there are multiple ways
of using XML. (04)
The technology called AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript And XML) was
available on browsers for a long time, but it became very widely
used after Google adopted it for Google Maps in 2005. In just four
years, AJAX has grown much, much faster than the Semantic Web. (05)
For representing triples, most AJAX systems use the JSON notation,
which is native to JavaScript and extremely concise. The complete
definition of JSON takes just one page: (06)
http://json.org/ (07)
For a slightly longer tutorial with examples, see (08)
http://www.json.org/fatfree.html (09)
To represent an RDF triple in JSON: ["subject", "verb", "object"] (010)
For an n-tuple, ["first", "second", "third", "fourth", "fifth"] (011)
The ability to represent n-tuples and to nest them to any depth
means that you can download or upload an entire table of a
relational database in JSON notation. (012)
In fact, JSON is an excellent interchange format for data of any kind.
If you want to have typed data, you can use curly brackets instead
of square brackets: (013)
{"type": "rectangle",
"width": 1920,
"length": 1080,
"interlace: false,
"frame rate: 24} (014)
If you want to use Description Logics, then use them. But it's
better to rewrite their syntax in JSON notation. (015)
There has already been a large amount of software developed for
the Semantic Web. I don't recommend that anyone throw it away.
But the amount of software that uses AJAX is vastly greater
than anything that uses Semantic Web technologies. (016)
What I recommend is that people adopt JSON as an upward compatible
notation that combines the best of the Semantic Web with AJAX.
It also supports a simpler and more direct integration with
relational databases and all other software on planet earth. (017)
This is not a new recommendation. Google doesn't use RDF.
They use JSON. The fact that the largest web-based business
in the world doesn't use Semantic Web technology is a clue
that something is wrong with the SemWeb. (018)
PDM> I also personally witness the research mafias... deliberately
> disregarding (rejecting) whatever research may contradict and
> not promote/support/validate the work and approaches they propose (019)
This phenomenon has plagued every large organization in business,
government, military, religion, engineering, science, and art
throughout the history of civilization. (020)
There is only one reason for not adopting JSON for the Semantic Web
today: it is "counterstrategic". (021)
That term was widely used in IBM, and the definition that I
suggested for the Dictionary of IBM Jargon was "embarrassingly
superior to what is strategic." (022)
I also recommended a definition for 'strategic': "supported by
managers who have been promoted beyond their level of competence." (023)
My definitions were included in an earlier version of the dictionary,
but some managers requested that they be deleted. Following is a
"cleaned up" version of the dictionary that omits some of the
better definitions: (024)
http://www.comlay.net/ibmjarg.pdf (025)
John (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
|