> [DN] would like to propose a joint thursday seminar with myself and
> someone from Neo4J to jointly present the new grapdb technology to
> this group to solicit feedback on this topic. (01)
[ppy] sounds great, Duane, thanks. Let us (you, I ... John and/or Leo
too?) work on this offline, and report back to the list when we have a
date and some details worked out. (02)
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Duane Nickull <duane@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [Disclosure: in order to be transparent, I am currently enamoured with
> Neo4J and think it has a lot to offer. I have no formal business
> relationship or vested commercial interest in any promotion however]
> Their current approach is based on a feedback mechanism, combined with a
> feedback loop that tracks preferences in a voting system. I did a talk
> about this
> The approach they seem to be moving towards is related to my earlier post
> on this list advocating Neo4J for graphs and ontology. The native
> persistence and traversal models are very aligned with many of your own
> theories and hypothesis. I find Adam Pease's SUMO work ideally aligned
> with the persistence and API's of Neo4J.
> Think of "Things" as ontological things and strings as relationships
> between them. I admit the current implementations are a bit primitive
> when it comes to discerning transitive vs. intransitive or symmetrical vs
> asymmetrical but I think a good ontologist can customize the traversal
> mechanisms to adjust. Having said that, I have no practical experience
> with Googles technology. neo4J OTOH seems to be ideal for a lot of the
> conversations on this list. As you all know, I do not bestow
> recommendations on this topic very lightly. Neo4J could use a little
> better stereotyping around N-ary relationships, especially in situations
> like A-[loves]->b. Does this means for al A-B that is true; all B->A is
> true? Not define currently.
> I would like to propose a joint thursday seminar with myself and someone
> from Neo4J to jointly present the new grapdb technology to this group to
> solicit feedback on this topic. It may be on the money or maybe just
> close, but IMO it is a worthy topic of conversation and worth a thursday
> I also want to work with the two groups to understand how we can develop a
> framework around Neo4J for ontology research.
> Duane Nickull
> Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
> i. Neo4J, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
> b. http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> t. @duanechaos
> "Don't fear the Graph! Embrace Neo4J" (04)
> On 12-05-16 10:37 PM, "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On 5/16/2012 4:01 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> >> Google Knowledge Graph
> >> >>http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-thi
> >Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately, I don't want Google's
> >"things not strings". I know how to find what I want by typing in
> >the correct strings. I definitely do *not* want their so-called
> >"things" messing up my search.
> >I was an "early adopter" of Google, when they first got started.
> >And I loved their page-rank algorithm. But their attempts to
> >second-guess what I want have been miserable failures.
> >John (05)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (06)