Hello Speed-Reading Ali! And
thank you for the most relevant questions from the present
technology coalface.
At this stage in our discussions,
namely before we have worked through Section 2 of my "Matthew
Lange 5x5 points" ("ML5x5p" below) (with their obvious
relevance as necessary background), I shall merely be offering
you a punt. But also an exposition of the general method I am
further testing now.
My answer is quite possibly based
on too little knowledge of the products and projects you refer
to. I do recall having looked at CALO long ago and quickly
dismissing it, I did watch the presentation of Siri to the
Ontolog Community before it was bought by Apple but thought it
nice though not nearly radical enough in its whole approach.
I have now quickly scanned some of the web pages you have
referred me to and see rather too much of "the same old story"
of OWL, RDF, the present conception of the Semantic Web, and
suchlike, though with the latest set of special adaptations or
cousins.
But it is very clear to me that a
point-by-point "comparing and contrasting" would not be
applicable. Any attempt is sure to be unreadable, confusing
and not very relevant to the real needs of the questioner.
So, based on long experience of
questions such as yours, I have been settling on this 2-step
strategy for handling them, at least at this stage of our
relevant discussions:
1. Point (usually very briefly
would suffice...) to how far up abstraction and dependency
hierarchies one would need to go to find the common
technological or infrastuctural ground.
2. Then, we look for enduser
usecases as the better common ground for a reliable meeting of
minds. But even then it won't be easy because of the
differences between enduser needs and predicaments in the very
different ecosystems, the present one so hotch-potch and the
foreseeable new one so architecturally clean, coherent,
integrated, manageable and user-congenially AOS-managed, all
thanks to its ontology foundation. So even with enduser
usecases we will need to go back up those hierarchies, here in
the user-situation domain. (But don't worry, we won't have to
go all the way back, right up to "helping people simplify
complexity together"!)
So, step 1, which is really very easy and simple once you've
got it, but it will shock you into complete incredulity at
first, especially before our ML5x5p Section 2 expansion (as I
warned above). In this case it happens to bring another ML 5
sub-steps:
1.1 Not a single one of the
present serializations of so-called ontologies is required.
The basic requirements here fit into ML5x5p 1.4. (As
for human readability, see 1.3 and 1.4 below.)
1.2 The uri/url/urn is required
only for interfacing with legacy environments. Identity is
always context-defined and largely-transparent. Precise,
complete, yet nimble and flexible context-management might
even be said to be the prime modus operandi of the AOS (cf.
ML5x5p 1.3 and 2.2).
1.3 The AOS as UI is the
universal "Semantic Desktop equivalent". Fine common ground
that! But only to start with. For even the html/http www is
not required for user views or inputs. The ontology-derived
Separation of Concerns (ML5x5p 2.1) is such that view
construction and management is highly medium- or
UI-device-adaptable and largely automatic, across all
canonical applications, universally. Obviously that is key to
application agility and transportability.
1.4 The equivalent of ontology
design and modification is similarly highly-flexible, with
unique features for componentization and largely plug-and-play
reuse (cf ML5x5p 2.3). That is really a subset of the
handling of any user input, in its turn usually largely
automatic reuse of prior modules, of course with full error
minimization and fault handling.
1.5 Data durability (as in ACID)
is likewise a fully-separated concern. So even though my
Metaset is at present based on RDF-like triple-storage (as it
has been since 1987) and my own internal DBMS-less management,
it is not a necessary constraint.
Well, as it has turned out it
seems there's nothing of Step 2 left in this case.
Ali, does that seem to address
your underlying real questions at all? Please don't hesitate
with any more.
And thanks again. As you can
see, you've provided me with a most useful prompt for a
contribution from me which - I expect - will be at least
partly applicable to many questions of the kinds I can expect
at this stage.
Best regards,
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October
26, 2011 4:25 PM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Some Grand Challenge proposal ironies
Hi Christopher,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM,
Christopher Spottiswoode
<cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. The universal yet simple concept of the
suggested Ontology
Chemistry Grand Challenge target product, the Application
Operating
System (AOS).
could you explain how this challenge differs from past efforts
of creating a "Semantic Desktop"?
I understand your proposal hopes to achieve much much more,
but the AOS seems like a pre-requisite for all the other
future desires.
Could you provide a suggestion as to how this effort would
overcome some of those past challenges?
Comparisons to these systems and how this Grand Challenge
would differ from them (and how this re-framing might overcome
the obstacles they faced) would be very useful in helping me
understand and provide useful feedback regarding this
proposal.
Thanks,
Ali
_________________________________________________________________
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
