[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology-based database integration

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:46:40 +0000
Message-id: <W800591214068301255380400@webmail46>
>Len Yabloko wrote:
>> Kingsley,
>>> John F. Sowa wrote:
>>>> Paola, Kingsley, and Cecil,
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>> 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):
>2. http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/dataspace/dav/wiki/Main/VOSSQL2RDF 
>(note: some of the live demo links are broken, but will be fixed soon)
>    (01)

Thank you for the links. I have seen various versions of these before. None of 
them answers my simple question: how do we know that "conceptual views" 
consistently represent the same concepts. This problem is a direct consequence 
of the OWA. All your presentations pretend that the problem does not exists. 
Take a look at this link that explains the problem and possible solutions: 
http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/2008/iswc-tones/slides/TonesTutorial08-4.pdf    (02)

>Kingsley Idehen              Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>President & CEO 
>OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>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
>    (03)

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    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>