Pavithra, (01)
> I am so surprised about you knowing John Zachman! (02)
We both worked at IBM. And we sometimes spoke at the same events.
I wrote a joint paper with him to show that his framework could be
used to analyze a subject that could then be mapped to logic. (03)
> Why do you all always support ER only? Even Oracle, the data
> base engine gurus now support Object Oriented databases? UML
> heavily supports OO notations! Why is the preference for
> relational databases? (04)
I support *every* type of database. My objection is to those
people who try to force everything into a single format. (05)
I support *everything* that has proved to be useful. ER is
one useful notation among many others. So are DLs. So is
FOL. So are rule-based systems. So are O-O systems. So
are statistics-based systems. So are fuzzy systems. And
so are the technologies developed for the Semantic Web. (06)
But the main point I was trying to make is that *none* of these
things exist in a vacuum, and systems that use one of them for
one purpose have to interoperate with systems that use another
for another purpose. (07)
As I have said many times, the worst thing about the Semantic
Web is the word 'web'. I agree that many web applications pose
problems that have different performance requirements from some
of the applications that do not use the web. But it's a matter
of degree. There is no sharp dividing line. (08)
The important thing is to emphasize semantic *systems* independently
of whether they are on the web, a supercomputer, or a coffee maker. (09)
John (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)
|