[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Google supports GoodRelations

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:57:32 -0500
Message-id: <4CD2BBCC.60005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Martin,    (01)

I would like to add my congratulations on the adoption of the
GoodRelations vocabulary by Google.  This is a big win, which
should establish it as a de facto standard for the industry.    (02)

For the record, following is the announcement on the Google site:    (03)

    http://code.google.com/p/goodrelations-for-oscommerce/    (04)

I spent some time browsing through the documents on the various sites,
and the following UML diagram is a good summary of the classes and
their interrelationships:    (05)

    http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/goodrelations-UML.png    (06)

Eventually, I came to eClassOWL - The Web Ontology for Products and
Services:    (07)

    http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/eclassowl/    (08)

And the following passage reminded me why I hate RDF and OWL:    (09)

> Downloads: eClassOWL 5.1.4 Products and Services Ontology
> * http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/ontologies/eclass/5.1.4/ (RDF/XML or HTML
>   via content negotiation - Warning: The files are very large - 38.3...71.8 
> * RDF/XML (Warning: The file is very large - 38.3 MB)
> * HTML (Warning: The file is very large - 71.8 MB)
> * ZIP: RDF/XML+HTML (eClassOWL 5.1.4 ontology and documentation, compressed
>   - RDF/XML + HTML, zip, 4.7 MB)    (010)

It also shows why Google does not use RDF + OWL.  They provide the
interfaces to it, and they process web sites that use it.  But they
have developed more streamlined notations and methods for themselves
and the clients who use their software.    (011)

And all that bloat is used to define just a few thousand classes.
By contrast, Cyc has 600,000 concept types and 5 million axioms, but
with a fraction of the size.  Every one of those concepts and axioms
was defined because the Cyc developers found applications that needed
them.  And I'm sure that people who use the SemWeb and LOD will find
a need for that many (or more likely, much more).    (012)

This bloat has become a legacy that will have to be supported for
a long time.  But when the largest web company with the largest
collection of servers ever assembled cannot afford to support that
bloat, that's a sign that something has to change.    (013)

RDFa is an important step towards simplification, but the three letters
R-D-F show that there's a huge amount of bloat lurking behind RDFa.    (014)

The total vocabulary for GoodRelations + eClassOWL could be defined
in a tiny fraction of the size with any common notation used in AI.
I'm not recommending that IT developers should learn AI or Cyc,
but I believe that it's time to rethink all the technology related
to semantics, ontology, and interoperable systems.    (015)

The following slides summarize my views on the issues, but there's
much more to be said:    (016)

    Integrating Semantic Systems    (017)

John    (018)

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    (019)

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