On 2/22/12 10:09 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Dear Matthew, Doug, and Paul,
>
> PT
>>> I have only a dim understanding of finance...
> MW
>> Clearly.
> I agree with Matthew.
>
> DF
>> Moving to triples is a step far backward for people who have their
>> information in databases which have rows and columns. It is an awkward,
>> but doable method of sending data which naturally falls in non-sparse
>> matrices.
>>
>> If the Semantic Web had come up with a better syntax than triples, it
>> would be far more used, imho.
> I agree. And that is one reason (among many) why Google, Microsoft,
> and Yahoo! abandoned RDF in favor of JSON. You can upload and download
> any DB structure -- RDB or OODB -- to and from JSON without making any
> changes to the native structure. JSON also has a one-to-one mapping
> to and from the data structures of every major programming language.
> RDF doesn't. Finally, JSON is efficient, and RDF is a bloated dog.
>
> DF
>> But how many times as many dollars does it cost to create a system using
>> URIs? Certainly enterprises would not wish to spend 20-100 times as much
>> for data storage by using URIs. The increased bandwidth would also be a
>> great cost.
> There are cases where RDF is mapped to highly efficient graph DBs,
> but they all use internal representations for which JSON would be
> a more efficient external notation than RDF. Facebook, for example,
> uses Open Graph DB, with their own notation that was inspired by a
> subset of RDFa, but they don't use RDFa or RDF. See http://ogp.me/
>
> DF
>> How many corporations want to put their corporate data in open data sets?
> Most commercial web sites use relational databases for their inventory
> and sales. Those unfortunate souls who tried to convert a commercial
> RDB to RDF triples were fired by a very angry management who responded
> to very angry users.
>
> PT
>> I agree it is normally not prudent to get ahead of established practice.
>> But I don't consider much of past practice (in the IT realm) to be worth
>> saving.
> Any system that has been in use for any period of time has acquired
> a lot of entropy (AKA crud) that needs to be cleaned up. But that
> does not imply that replacing a relational DB with triples is a
> good idea.
>
> PT
>>> I agree it is normally not prudent to get ahead of established practice.
>>> But I don't consider much of past practice (in the IT realm) to be worth
>>> saving.
> DF
>> Here, i agree.
> I agree with the literal sense of Paul's statement. But the tone
> in which it's written sounds like a freshly minted computer science
> graduate who gets hired by an ongoing business. Then he succeeds
> in persuading management to convert their RDBs to RDF. When they
> see what happens, he gets fired, and management has to fight hard
> to avoid bankruptcy.
>
> 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
>
>
John, (01)
Are you saying that using triples or quads are bad period, or that they
are bad when applied in "rip and replace" mode? I think, but do confirm,
that you mean the latter. Putting RDF distractions aside, I believe are
are all seeking full exploitation of the relation model. Basically,
rather than having to choose between Intensional (relational property
graphs) vs Extensional (relational tables) solutions, we can look to a
newer generation of RDBMS solutions that offer exploitation of both
RDBMS aspects, subject to application requirements. (02)
Links: (03)
1. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297 -- this article explains
the point very well . (04)
-- (05)
Regards, (06)
Kingsley Idehen
Founder& CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen (07)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|