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