Len Yabloko wrote:
>> John F. Sowa wrote:
>>> Paola, Kingsley, and Cecil,
>>> What we do at VivoMind is to represent everything in conceptual
>>> graphs and to index the graphs by a Cognitive Signature (TM) as
>>> they arrive. When new graphs arrive, we compute their Cognitive
>>> Signatures, check whether we ever saw anything similar, and
>>> retrieve the previous cases.
>> Cool, he kind of thing you can also do over a cluster of servers, even
>> if you provide SPARQL or SQL as entry points to the engine.
> Obviously, since as John pointed out all different data representations are
>essentially logical equivalent. I think this a case of confusing logic with
>semantics. The question should be: are all these so called "conceptual views"
>represent the same concepts.
>> This is a very important point, as this is ultimately how the strange
>> DBMS void between RDBMS (schema first; column or row stores) and Graph
>> Model DBs (e.g. RDF Stores) will be bridged.
> The void can only be bridged with reach semantics providing intended
>interpretation and composition for conceptual structures. RDF does not provide
>these (IHMO). Looking at the pretty pictures in your link I don't see how all
>different databases at the bottom end-up exposing conceptual view at the top.
Links (assuming I hadn't posted these earlier re. the generation of a
concrete conceptual data access layer that starts with a logical
Relational Schema): (02)
(note: some of the live demo links are broken, but will be fixed soon) (03)
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com (06)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (07)