On Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:11 PM, John wrote:
Schema.org can be viewed as a threat or an opportunity for the Semantic Web.
It was founded by a collaboration of Google, Microsoft (Bing), and Yahoo! as
an alternative to RDF or RDFa
> for tagging web pages." (01)
The schema.org's team has chosen popular promises, shirking all sorts of
"intellectualese" as ontology, formal logic, etc: "be simple, and the web
masses will follow you."
All sorts of data models and data interchange languages, like EAV, XML,
JASON, RDF, etc. looking to structure or communicate data over the Interent
have limited efficiency. It's not because of varying data types, syntax,
encoding or decoding in browsers, but because of schemas, i.e., maturity of
computing ontologies.
There is still a lot of ambiguity with the information organization systems
as classifications, taxonomies, ontologies and Ontology.
Generally, mature ontology includes:
classes (general things),
instances (particular things, individuals, objects),
properties (property values),
processes and functions (changes),
relationships (among general things), with rules and constraints. (02)
The efficiency of schemas as diffirent as the choice of a member of the
Knowledge Organization Quadruple (KOQ):
1.If its just grouping, arranging, sorting, and pigeon-holing of entities
into classes or categories, according to some external property, like, say,
the UN Standard for Product and Services, what is just a simple
classification.
2. If its a hierarchical structuring according to some internal property,
like biological taxonomy, mostly going as a simple lightweight ontology.
3. If it's an ordered set of classes describing a certain domain, with
defined subclass hierarchy, properties, relationships, and constraints.
4. Or, if its a heavyweight common ontology describing cross-domains with
formally defined entities, subclass hierarchy, properties, relationships,
and constraints or axioms. (03)
BOTTOM LINE
Many issues (with smart web applications and semantic web technologies) are
coming from the lack of commitment to a common ontology, as a universal,
referenceable system of meanings, a guarantee of consistency, completeness
and understanding, serving as a solid foundation for
data/information/knowledge indexing, metatagging, retrieval, and
communicating. (04)
Azamat Abdoullaev (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:11 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. (06)
> Schema.org can be viewed as a threat or an opportunity for the
> Semantic Web. It was founded by a collaboration of Google,
> Microsoft (Bing), and Yahoo! as an alternative to RDF or RDFa
> for tagging web pages. See http://schema.org/docs/faq.html
>
> With that backing and with the simplicity of the schema.org
> notation, the adoption rate of schema.org has been faster
> than RDFa and much, much faster than RDF/XML. Some people
> have considered that a threat to the Semantic Web.
>
> But a new web site provides a mapping of the full schema.org
> type hierarchy to JSON and four notations for RDF: XML,
> N3, Turtle, and NTriples. See http://schema.rdfs.org/
>
> Of those notations, JSON is the most humanly readable and
> the most computationally efficient. JSON is the native data
> format of JavaScript, and mappings have been defined to all
> the major programming languages. See http://www.json.org/
>
> The original RDF/XML was a disaster for humans and for computers.
> It is horribly inefficient for computation, and the native XML
> tools that process it are too slow for critical applications.
> For that reason, its adoption rate has been glacially slow.
>
> The rapid adoption rate of schema.org and the JSON notation
> should be a wake-up call for the Semantic Web. R. V. Guha,
> the original designer of RDF, said that he "wished" he could
> have used LISP notation for RDF. The JSON notation is
> essentially LISP with brackets and curly braces.
>
> The schema.rdfs.org web site is useful for showing how the
> Semantic Web tools can interoperate with schema.org. But
> anybody who compares JSON to the RDF notations will have
> no incentive to adopt any version of RDF.
>
> For these reasons, Schema.org and the JSON notation are the
> wave of the future. The W3C cannot compete with Google,
> Microsoft, Yahoo!, and other companies that are joining the
> consortium. (One example is the Russian search company
> Yandex, which is now translating the vocabulary.)
>
> To avoid sinking into irrelevance, the Semantic Web must do
> more than specify a way to migrate from XML notation to JSON.
> Even declaring JSON to be an alternative is not sufficient.
> A modest proposal:
>
> 1. Phase out RDF/XML as the official base for RDF. There is
> no need to say that it's "deprecated". A softer term would
> be IBM's euphemism "functionally stabilized".
>
> 2. Adopt JSON notation as the official base, but define a formal
> semantics for JSON. Pat Hayes collaborated with Guha to define
> the logic base (LBase) for RDF. Pat also worked on the ISO
> project for Common Logic (CL) and defined the CL model theory
> as an upward compatible extension to LBase. Define the JSON
> semantics by a mapping to CLIF (Common Logic Interchange Format).
> CLIF uses a LISP-like notation that has an almost one-to-one
> mapping from JSON.
>
> 3. Use the CL semantics to define other useful logic languages
> as extensions to JSON. One example would be a version of OWL
> that uses JSON. Another would be a rule language that uses
> a Horn-clause subset of CL with a syntax based on JavaScript.
>
> 4. The option of writing N-tuples in JSON can support a direct
> mapping to and from the tables of a relational database.
> The rule language could include a version of Datalog to state
> SQL queries, constraints, and updates. The types defined by
> schema.org would be a valuable enhancement to SQL.
>
> Common Logic is very expressive, and it is not necessary for the
> Semantic Web tools to implement theorem provers for the full
> ISO 24707 standard. However, it would be possible to extend
> the JSON-based notation to support the full CL semantics.
>
> In fact, the W3C could work with ISO to include a JSON-based
> dialect in the next update to the 24707 standard. A collaboration
> of ISO, W3C, and the major web companies could establish the
> Semantic Web as a solid foundation for mainstream applications.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|