On 5/27/11 10:33 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> On 5/27/2011 7:49 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> I wouldn't consider what we do in Virtuoso (which by the way
>> is built by a team of developers with strong LISP backgrounds
>> amongst other things) as being trivial. We are able to make scalable
>> Linked Data views over relational data sources on the fly etc.. We have
>> a hybrid data server (which combines conventional database management
>> and middleware functionality).
>> Virtuoso came to be in 1998.
> I apologize for using the word 'trivial'.
> But your example proves my point: (a) the team had a strong background
> in LISP and AI technology, (b) you started in 1998 when the SW was in
> its infancy, so you used pre-SW technology, and (c) you did what the
> SW gang should have done: integrate the SW ideas with mainstream IT. (01)
This is why I understand and totally appreciate where you're coming from. (03)
>> Please do understand that when it comes to DBMS and Middleware matters I
>> don't take my cues from TimBL or the W3C, I just don't. I come from a
>> different place re. data virtualization, access, integration, and
> That's fine. I wasn't criticizing your work. I was complaining about
> the failure of the SW to do the kind of integration that you have been
Okay, I work with W3C (as a member) and TimBL (various endeavors re.
Linked Data and Linked Open Data Cloud), but this is all driven by
trying to steer them closer towards more inclusive and appreciative
approaches re. what already exists in the broader tech continuum into
which their innovations (rather than inventions) operate. (04)
>> BTW - we have a declarative meta schema language, and the only value
>> that R2RML offers to us is the ability to import and export declarations
>> of Linked Data Views that's portable with other systems to do similar.
> Again, you're confirming my point. If the SW had adopted LISP as the
> base notation, you wouldn't even need those conversion tools. (05)
LISP too is a silo of the language variety i.e., syntax. Thus, it really
comes down to what you've pushed for a while i.e., base the conceptual
scheme on logic rather than syntax :-) (06)
What I think mankind is struggling to understand with computers is this:
fix what we couldn't achieve, efficiently, prior to their creation. (07)
There are cultural reasons for different languages, and natural human
limitations with regards to scalable translation of different languages
as encountered. Computers don't have this problem if we take the logic
based conceptual schema approach for integration. (08)
> The reason why I like JSON is that it's just LISP with brackets and
> braces to clarify the levels of nesting. (09)
I tend not to care much about syntax, I just want the conceptual (logic
based schema) underpinnings to be in place etc..
>>> That is the best of both worlds -- and they implemented it in 1994.
>> Hmm. It was just OK
> Of course. It was a prototype implemented for a PhD dissertation.
> But it demonstrated (a) a physical representation that supported
> *both* relational (SQL) and path-based queries, and (b) algorithms
> that were *more* efficient than tables for the relational view
> and *more* efficient than triple stores for path-based views.
> The importance of separating the logical views from the physical
> layout had been recognized in the 1970s. In the 1990s, there was
> no excuse for not supporting both relational and path-based views
> on an equal basis.
> Even today, there are a lot more programmers in the world who
> know SQL than SPARQL or any other SW technology. (010)
I've had my team work on a simple DBMS explorer that demonstrates how
references types that resolve can work inside an RDBMS which showcasing
LInked Data at local DBMS scale. With this in place it becomes much
easier to demonstrate how URIs decouple this old pattern for use at
InterWeb scale. (012)
It am testing it now, and will post links to the explorer that includes
source code etc.. All you do is open up your browser, and via power of
CORS, HTML5, WebDB, and ODBC or XMLA, you can see why this whole Linked
Data story is about Relational Databases that may or may not support
reference values (URIs). This tool also make its easier to demonstrate
how a conventional RDBMS can easily get challenged modulo optimizer
tweaks for handling Relational Property Graph style navigation etc.. (013)
I think our only difference boils down to whether the W3C and the
Semantic Web project will learn from past mistakes, as I've said
repeatedly, I am cautiously optimistic that changes are coming :-) (014)
>>> ... it's been 17 years since that publication in 1994, and the W3C
>>> still hasn't got the message.
>> Sorta, I still have my fingers crossed re. their ability to learn
>> from mistakes made in the past.
> Again, I emphasize that the W3C is a committee that makes technical
> decisions by voting. Committees are very good at finding faults and
> cleaning up de facto standards. But they are terrible in creating
> totally new (or as they say "proactive") standards.
> I expect real innovation to come from individuals (e.g. Perl or PHP),
> small, innovative companies (e.g., small businesses, such as Google
> used to be), or influential innovators in big businesses (e.g.,
> Steve Jobs).
> 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
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen (018)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
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 (019)