On 9/4/10 11:42 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
> On Sat, September 4, 2010 12:58, Kingsley Idehen said:
>> On 9/3/10 8:47 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> ...
>>> [someone wrote:]
>>>> Let's assume you mean publicly available open data published using the
>>>> principles in TimBL's famous meme, in this case, handling this data at
>>>> Web Scale is the major challenge at hand.
>>> Tim's a good guy, and he did some outstanding work back in 1991, and
>>> he made some good proposals for extending it later. Unfortunately,
>>> the Semantic Web has turned out to be primarily a *syntactic* web,
>>> and with one of the worst-designed syntaxes ever inflicted on poor
>>> innocent students and programmers.
>> Yes, but not 100% percent TimBL's fault (I would say). At lot of it
>> stems from people following (instinctively) rather that looking closer
>> at his meme's (especially re. Linked Data and the Semantic Web Project
>> in general).
> TimBL designed the Semantic Web "layer cake" on which RDF sits on top of
> XML and supports the semantic layers sit. He has recently pushed
> Linked Data as part of the Semantic Web, following that layer cake meme.
>
> Remember that the outstanding work he did in 1991 was also based on
> defining an underlying syntax. The idea is that for widespread computers
> to communicate, they need to be able to handle the same syntax.
> (01)
For agents to exchange semantically enriched structured data over an
HTTP network they simply need to be able to negotiate data
representation formats. (02)
The layer cake is/was broken. Until the cake conveys the statement above
(by putting other formats for representing and serializing Triples on
par with RDF/XML). In short, the layer cake is not the way, since this
isn't about layers per se. I much prefer Semantic Web Technology Stack [1]. (03)
> My issue with RDF is not with it being exchanged on the web in XML -- why
> should semanticians care about messaging formats -- but in its being
> limited to triples, which XML is not. This is a bottleneck that makes
> encoding a semantic language into RDF/XML difficult, raising complications
> for expressing contexts, attaching meta-assertions to RDF statements, and
> expressing ternary and higher arity relations.
>
> RDF (which can be expressed in multiple syntaxes) is a step beyond a fixed
> syntax necessary for universal computer communication. As such, it and
> the layer cake *languages* built above it (OWL& SPARQL) need not be
> required to transmit semantics, even if they use XML messaging formats.
>
>> ...
>>> We have to support that syntax as legacy systems, but we have to look
>>> at where we should be going in the future. XML-based notations are
>>> great for marking up documents, but not as general language formats.
>> I agree 100%.
> I agree. However, an XML message envelope around an expression in some
> language which can be stripped in a standard fashion after transmission
> over the web should not be considered a burden. A local system that
> transliterates into and out of XML need not store its data in XML, nor
> use XML-based query techniques. (04)
We shouldn't even be having this conversation if HTTP content
negotiation is in play. Ditto complete separation of Semantics and Syntax. (05)
>>>> ... we compete against these folks [Oracle et al.] at the DBMS engine
>>>> level. Of course we also complement them at the virtual/federated
>>>> database level. These optimizations are best tasked when you attempt to
>>>> use SPARQL against large RDF data sets stored in these databases. As
>>>> for
>>>> SPARQL-BI, they offer nothing (i.e., can venture into TPC-H land
>>>> against RDF stored in these engines).
> Optimization may show better ways to store data than RDF, even if the
> queries coming in are packaged in RDF. So long as the system can
> accept RDF/XML queries and respond with RDF/XML, its internal syntax
> is immaterial to the outside world. If the system accepts SPARQL queries
> and acts like a triple-store, it doesn't matter to the asker if its
> internal processing is totally different.
>
>>> That's great. But you're doing what I suggested -- support the
>>> semantics, independently of whatever data organization or notation
>>> happens to be used.
>> Yes!
> As long as the notation used in the query from an external asker can be
> converted into (one of) the system's native queries. (06)
Yes, which is why RDF/XML != RDF. Also, SPARQL != RDF/XML. RDF database
systems may or may not be SPARQL compliant. The ones that are compliant
deal with the situation you describe. (07)
Links: (08)
1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/_after8_/3702240268/ -- Semantic Web
Technology Stack (09)
Kingsley
> -- doug foxvog
>
>>>>> As for MySQL, I used that as an example of a tool that has a lot
>>>>>> of potential for many LOD applications.
>>>> That's a typical LAMP crowd gut reaction, or should I say "wishful
>>>> thinking". MySQL doesn't cut it, really.
>>> I was simply pointing out some good applications that use RDB.
>>> I make very heavy use of graph representations. But there are also
>>> many reasons for using tables when tables are appropriate. The logic
>>> is independent of the data structures.
>> Yes, and as you can tell, we do the very same thing.
>>
>>> I'll repeat my previous principle:
>>>
>>> Always question strategy, no matter who states them.
>> Again 100%, and if you look at my general commentary zeitgeist re.
>> Linked Data, RDF, and the Semantic Web Project in general, that's what
>> I've always done. You know too well that education is about teaching us
>> not to simply follow without understanding, and this can only happen
>> when we aren't afraid to be the sole heretic questioning memes, visions,
>> or executable strategies.
>>
>> Again, violent agreement.
>>
>>> Sometimes the strategies are good, and sometimes the strategies are bad.
>>> But there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution to all kinds
>>> of problems and applications.
>> Amen!
>>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>> John
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President& CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> =============================================================
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (010)
-- (011)
Regards, (012)
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|