Hello John, (01)
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:04:15PM -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Dear Adam, William, and Michael,
>
> I sent a note to Ontolog Forum (copy below), which addresses
> many of the points raised in this thread. (02)
Which would have been a better place for you to start the thread. (03)
Honestly - your first mail to the nlp2rdf list was so badly worded that I
just thought "Do not feed this uninformed troll". Your second mail suggested
that you may know what you are talking about and searching you with google
showed me that you should really know what you are talking about. (04)
> WW
> >Here the confusion behind your arguments is quite clear. RDF/XML and
> >RDFa are just two ways of writing down exactly the same thing.
>
> I agree that the semantics is critical, and RDF/XML defines the
> semantics for the RDFa tags. See the note below. (05)
The RDF semantics defines the semantics for the RDF abstract syntax.
RDF/XML, RDFa, N-triples, N3, etc. are serializations of the abstract syntax. (06)
See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ (07)
> That is
> also why the new schema.org is growing much faster than RDF, as
> Guha said in his talk. (08)
schema.org is part of RDF: http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html (09)
"The data model used is very generic and derived from RDF Schema" (010)
> A modest proposal:
>
> 1. Phase out RDF/XML as the official base for RDF. (011)
The official base is the RDF abstract syntax and not RDF/XML. (012)
> 2. Adopt JSON notation as the official base, but define a formal
> semantics for JSON. (013)
Is there something wrong with the current abtract syntax of RDF or it's
semantics ? (014)
> 3. Use the CL semantics to define other useful logic languages
> as extensions to JSON. (015)
You can do that with the current RDF semantics. Nobody said that RDF is
bound to RDFs and OWL/DL. If you think that many people would sacrifice
decideability and low computational complexity for more expressional power,
just define you own semantic extension. You can have unrestricted first order
logic - LBase is just that. (016)
> One example would be a version of OWL that uses JSON. (017)
OWL does not depend on RDF/XML, JSON or any other data data exchange format.
OWL reasoners do not use RDF/XML internally. (018)
> Another would be a rule language that uses
> a Horn-clause subset of CL (019)
You can do that right now on top of RDF ! (020)
> with a syntax based on JavaScript. (021)
Would you also prove mathematical theorems with JSON syntax ? :-) (022)
> 4. The option of writing N-tuples in JSON can support a direct
> mapping to and from the tables of a relational database. (023)
Now this is something else - you want n-ary relations instead of triples ?
That is understandable. I do not know the reasons why we are restricted to
triples but I guess developing software for the semantic web would be much
more complicated if this restriction were not there. Triple-stores are
slow enough - how slow would tuple-stores be ? (024)
Regards, (025)
Michael Brunnbauer (026)
--
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++ 81379 München
++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++ E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++ http://www.netestate.de/
++
++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
|