[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:21:19 -0500
Message-id: <4AE4F98F.9050302@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sean,    (01)

The point I have been trying to get across is that the SemWeb is just
one technology among many.  It was explicitly designed to be a very
simple technology that lacks a great deal of functionality that had
been designed, implemented, and used over the past 30 years.    (02)

SB> ... the exercise we are going through at the moment - working out
 > a migration path to integrate conventional systems to the SemWeb.    (03)

The goal is to work out a migration path to the *future*.  The SemWeb
is just one among many current technologies.  The WHERE clause of
SQL, for example, has supported full first-order logic from the very
beginning.  It's used for both queries and constraints.  The EXPRESS
language, which Matthew used for the systems he described, also has
the expressive power of full first-order logic.    (04)

SB> Historically, most of our interchanges have been on a bilateral
 > basis.  This leads to lots of cheap, pairwise interfaces.    (05)

That is certainly true.  We must migrate to a future that has
sufficient functionality to support *everything*.    (06)

You cannot migrate from EXPRESS or SQL *to* the SemWeb without losing
the functionality that those systems have supported for many decades.
The goal must be to migrate *from* EXPRESS, SQL, SemWeb, UML, and
many other technologies to a future that integrates *all* of them.    (07)

That is why I made in those slides.  There are 128 of them, and all
of them make useful points.  To start with the slides that address
the issues you raised, please go to slides 71 to 92 for Section 5
on "Methodologies and Missed Opportunities":    (08)

   http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cnl4ss.pdf    (09)

I presented those slides as a roadmap of where Semantic Technologies
for the future will go.  I don't have the power to make them go there,
but that is the natural direction of evolution.  The W3C has more power
than I do.  Companies such as Google have even more power than the W3C.
The fact that Google uses JSON notation rather than RDF is a warning
sign.  It shows that Google doesn't consider the current SemWeb
directions adequate to support massive amounts of data.    (010)

John    (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>