[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:17:27 +0000
Message-id: <W567772589957111255457847@webmail13>
>If I happen to talk about apples and not about elephants,
>that doesn't mean I'm confusing apples with elephants.
>LY> Obviously, since as John pointed out all different data
> > representations are essentially logical equivalent.  I think
> > this a case of confusing logic with semantics.
>First, I never said that "all different data representations"
>are logically equivalent.  What I said is that different syntactic
>structures for databases, such as tables vs. graphs, are capable
>of storing logically equivalent content.    (01)

That is exactly how I understood it. Perhaps I should have said "all different 
representations of the same data".    (02)

>But you can store different content with different semantics
>in the same kind of database.  Not all content is the same.    (03)

No argument here. There is no point to give preference graph over tables when 
the problem is semantic integration. I also agree that storage must be 
optimized for access to data - not for interpretation of that data.    (04)

>LY> The question should be: are all these so called "conceptual views"
> > represent the same concepts.
>That is an important question.  But it is a different question.    (05)

Well, that was a question that started this discussion. Otherwise, you don't 
relay need ontology.    (06)

>Two different kinds of content stored in the same kind of database
>may make different statements that use different concepts defined
>by different conceptual views.    (07)

Sure - that is the sole purpose of multiple views over the same databases. The 
problem is integrating data from different databases into a consistent 
conceptual view.      (08)

>Whenever you criticize any point that I make, please quote the
>exact sentence or paragraph that you are criticizing.    (09)

First, I was not criticizing any of your points. I was using your point in 
support of mine. Second, you are right - I should be more careful in doing so.    (010)

>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
>    (011)

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    (012)

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