Thanks for the response. Interestingly, your sides help make the
point that Semantics is just part of the picture, as much of the effort
we are making is entirely orthogonal to the subject area of the slides.
Our problems are more demonstrating the implementation path, going from
SQL to SPARQL, triple-izing database output v. using an ontology
integration tool, sticking things together as web services, integrating
geo-services, processing non-database sources, and so on. In short,
demonstrating that the SemWeb is not a theory, but can be physically
implemented on top of the last 20 years investment in stovepipe systems
(which are expected to be around another 20 to 30 years). Not to mention
all the asides such as policy-based security or trustworthiness
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of John F.
> Sent: 26 October 2009 01:21
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology-based database integration
> *** WARNING ***
> This message has originated outside your organisation,
> either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> 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.
> SB> ... the exercise we are going through at the moment - working out
> > a migration path to integrate conventional systems to the SemWeb.
> 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.
> SB> Historically, most of our
interchanges have been on a bilateral
> > basis. This leads to lots of cheap, pairwise interfaces.
> That is certainly true. We must migrate to a future that has sufficient
> functionality to support *everything*.
> 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.
> 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":
> 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.
> 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/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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