On 12/5/2011 12:10 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> many of us who have dealt with information modeling for these many
> long years have come to realize that the notion of a "path through
> the semantic network" is a critical idea in understanding relationships
> among information elements, particularly among competing viewpoints. (01)
I very strongly agree with that point, and I also agree
with the following point: (02)
> EAR does not of itself have such a notion. (03)
But I totally disagree with the following: (04)
> In RDF this is a well-understood concept -- a trace through the graph. (05)
When you're dealing with huge graphs, you need to use a very clean
notation *and* implementation. RDF began as Tim B-L's notion of
the Giant Global Graph. As Guha said, he and many others (including
Pat Hayes and Ora Lassila) wanted to use LISP notation (A B C) for
representing triples. That would be fairly clean. (06)
But they yielded to political pressure to use XML, which is a fine
notation for annotating documents. But when you try to mix the
graph representation with document annotation, pointer following,
and a host of other issues, the graph is lost in the mush. When
you encode that mush in a bloated syntax, you get a disaster. (07)
Designing pretty notations that disguise that bloat cannot make
it more efficient. It's like "putting lipstick on a pig". (08)
The original idea of the GGG was good. But the rapid uptake
of schema.org by webmasters is the final blow that exposes the
weakness of RDF/XML as a viable tool for processing the GGG. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|