On 5/19/2012 12:33 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
> SQL systems have an inherent inflexibility in terms of rigid schemas.
> Most of the world's data is not rigid in terms of a frame. (01)
Yes, but... (02)
There is a continuum of rigidity to flexibility. For different
purposes, we need different degrees ranging from diamond to fluff. (03)
It's not an either-or decision, but a question of how to develop
better tools that enable us to choose the best option(s) with a
minimum of wasted time and effort. (04)
In any case, the SQL language was just an IBM research project, which
CIA + Oracle prematurely froze into Intergalactic Data Speak. Don't
consider SQL limitations to be characteristic of anything but one
prematurely frozen interface. For similar reasons, don't consider
RDF + OWL limitations to be characteristic of anything but another
interface that was prematurely frozen. (05)
Note that Ted Codd admitted that SQL had severe limitations as early
as 1978, and the RDF developers Guha and Bray also admitted that RDF
had serious flaws. Both of them are legacy systems that have to be
supported, but not recommended as a foundation for the future. (06)
By the way, following is a quick summary of the Google KG with pointers
to interviews with some of the Google developers: (07)
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google-goes-back-to-what-it-does-well-finding-things.php (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|