ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies, knowledge model, knowledge base

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:58:59 -0700
Message-id: <F8ABE98AB6C7484BA73C29A676169654@Gateway>

Dear Adrian and John,

 

My comments are below,

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

 

Hi John & All,

There's another dimension to the discussion about storing rules, triggers etc in an SQL database.

As John has described, the result is a Rube Goldberg combination of different semantics of different components, reminiscent of the OWL/RDF/SPARQL "stack".

True, using domains as I suggested is by no means an elegant solution, but it works. 

Exposing these different components provides many job opportunities for programmers, but un-maintainability comes much sooner than it should as such a system scales up in complexity.

Also very true, but there is presently no economical alternative that works well in products that are economic and available and well supported. 

Bottom line -- there should be a single clean programmer interface with well defined semantics.  The interface can be implemented with different subsystems, but they should be completely hidden in a black box.

Agreed also, but such an approach remains a customization of existing products, mostly using domains as I suggested in the previous email.  There are other ways to do the same thing, but like you say, they are all kludges in one way or another. 

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks!  Well worth the price!

                                -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8/10/2012 4:51 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> The reason it is important to store rules as well as facts in the
> database is that such architecture makes it very easy to store a table
> of context IDs and relate them to which rules and facts apply to each
> context ID.  Searching for contexts becomes very manageable with that
> method.

But you need to do much more than storing and finding rules in order
to make a DB into a deductive DB.  The critical task is to make the
deductive component a natural extension of the query component.

In SQL, for example, a view V uses a WHERE-clause to define
a *virtual* relation that accesses some logical combination of
other relations (which may be stored and/or virtual relations).

To an SQL user, V looks like an ordinary relation.  But any use of V
will trigger a backward-chaining deduction that is similar to what
happens in a rule-based language like Prolog.

SQL implementations use a method of storing and indexing their
relations, either stored or virtual.  But that method is separate
from the methods for storing data.  If you store a view as data
in the DB, it will never get used as a view.


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

 


_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>