[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:24:53 +0300
Message-id: <AANLkTikuUX-qCx1zR1zaqHC5dhjPcY+vQTmNkBCqANUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

on our flag is written COMMUNICATION

case 1.
Suppose we have 2 information systems with ontology+reasoner.
Let's them communicate to each other.
What kind of language and dictionary we need to write question? SPARQL?
What kind of language  and dictionary we need to write answer? XML, CSV?
And here CNL is a benchmark.

case 2.
They have ontology. They would not like to export it (see FERENC KOVACS) but may be they would communicate with other information systems. How?

1. If they say "*Oh, but we are so much bigger than everybody else!*". we say "Fine. Where is your SPARQL end point at least? We have Examiner to talk with your ontology."

2. JS: "but every application will have ... different vocabularies, and different dialects."
Inside. But with a stranger we usually change language to common.

JS: "I would focus on standardizing the logic, independent of whatever notations or tools are used to generate or process it."
I am with you.

What do we need for our information systems to communicate properly?
Integration? Alignment? Unification? Information system education?

maxima: I don't bother about your tools to build your information system. I am interesting what kind of question your system can answer. And a kind of information it can accept.


2010/11/8 John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Alex and Mike,

> as XML, RDF are data models and ways for information coding,
> it is not for users but for programmers.
> XML is accepted by programmers for their needs.
> Internal structure of SW is a programmers deal.

You're preaching to the choir, but you're missing the main point.
The fundamental point I have been emphasizing again and again is


Everybody works in their own little box without considering what's
outside their boxes or inside anybody else's boxes.

At a recent conference, one of the speakers emphasized the point
that businesses have groups working on business process, other
groups working on business rules, and still other groups working on
business information.  And many of those groups are isolated from
one another.  But it's all *one business*.

Everything is interconnected with everything else, and suboptimizing
one function or process or program or system while ignoring the others
is a recipe for disaster.

Every time I say that, the Semantic Web people jump up and down and say

   *Oh, but we are so much bigger than everybody else!*

That is why I call the SemWebbers *provincial*.  They think they are
the world, but they are more like the telephone or the automobile.
They are an important part of the *infrastructure*, but they are
just *part* of the support structure -- *never* the ultimate goal.

In the bad old days, AT&T thought they were the world, and they
gave pretty good service for their part.  But the telephone industry
skyrocketed in function and service *after* AT&T was broken up.

The best thing that could happen to the SemWeb is to break it up.
The greatest period of innovation for the WWW occurred *before*
the W3C was founded.  Standards are necessary, but nobody is wise
enough to know what to standardize until some technologies emerge
as de facto standards.

Please reread the following slides, especially the first two
sections (slides 3 to 24):
> Even for knowledge interchange it may be better to have CNL.
> Do we need a standard for CNL?

I would say controlled NLs are useful, but every application will
have different needs, different vocabularies, and different dialects.
I would focus on standardizing the logic, independent of whatever
notations or tools are used to generate or process it.

See slides 25 to 55 of iss.pdf.

> Surely there is a distinction to be made between what is modeled
> and what it is modeled in. Changing the syntax or the presentation
> is not the same as changing the content of the model, and in the end
> a model is either a model of something in the problem domain or
> a model of a (usually proposed) solution.

I agree.

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    (01)

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