On 9/3/12 9:50 AM, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> you stated: " we should simply understand semantics and then appreciate how
> they affect expression via languages."
> I attempted to do so and I developed basic semantic structures as summarized
> in http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html
> The structure is accompanied by a dictionary-taxonomy of concepts, including
> also kinds of relations.
> What do you think about it? (01)
In a nutshell, very impressed :-) (02)
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens Kingsley Idehen
> Verzonden: zondag 2 september 2012 16:43
> Aan: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software
> On 9/1/12 1:37 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> Denise, Michael B, Kingsley, and Andries,
>> Before commenting on the details of your notes, I'd like to emphasize
>> an excerpt from the original DAML report by Tim Berners-Lee:
>>> The goal of interoperability between heterogeneous components that we
>>> build is one that will test the extent to which the Semantic Web is
>>> achieving its promise. The more diverse the systems interoperating,
>>> the greater the merit of the Semantic Web.
>> The date of the proposal is February 2000:
>> That quotation comes from Section E on Evaluation. Twelve years
>> later, we would expect to see interoperating systems running all the
>> languages and tools that Tim mentions (plus a lot more). But instead
>> of trying to support maximum diversity, the SW developers narrowed
>> their goals to just RDF data with a deliberately restricted subset of
>>> I'm including this post and the DAML proposal as required readings in
>>> my Semantic Analysis Methods course...
>> I'm glad that you like the note. But you might add more progress
>> reports for the DAML project. The first is an "Intent of Work" from
>> March 2001, which is fairly close to the proposal, but the words
>> 'diversity' and 'heterogeneous' are missing:
>> Following is a progress report from February 2002:
>> An ominous sign is that the word 'interoperability' occurs only once.
>> The very expressive Semantic Web Logic Language (SWeLL) occurs 8 times.
>> A new language called DAML+OIL is mentioned 6 times.
>> Another report from November 2002:
>> Interoperability is mentioned once. DAML+OIL is mentioned 6 times as
>> a combination of a query language plus a rule language. SWeLL is
>> mentioned 8 times, but a new language called OWL also occurs 8 times.
>> Finally, the Final Technical Report from September 2006:
>> The most disappointing part of this report is that SWeLL, which was
>> supposed to include propositional, first-order, and higher-order logic
>> in the original proposal has now become "Notation N3" for representing
>> RDF triples. N3 would allow some rules to operate on RDF data, but
>> most of SWeLL is gone.
>> But the most disgusting part is that interoperability is now defined
>> as the ability to use N3 on independently developed systems that all
>> use RDF.
>> No legacy systems, no relational databases, and no possibility of
>> interoperating with any data not represented in RDF.
> You are right in some ways, but there are nuances that need to be
> considered. Let's start with RDF, what is it actually?
> Semantic Webbers:
> Its everything.
> To The Experienced (and forgiving, and I want you to be forgiving):
> Its about the entity-attribute-value model enhanced with explicit semantics.
> In addition, and this is where it all goes so wrong, messaging wise, its
> also happens to be about a collection of syntaxes and serialization formats.
> The problem with RDF is that its a cacophony of conflation. To make matters
> worse, zealotry has coalesced around this broken cacophony such that even
> trying to connecting with the entity-attribute-value model (from which its
> unequivocally inspired) is considered heresy.
> Of late, I coined the phrase "R-D-F reflux" I used it to refer to folks to
> have a gut reaction to those letters due to the ill effects of the
> conflation and zealotry for which it (unfortunately) it is now associated.
> Let's try to move past the mistakes of the past to a future that beneficial
> to all. Let's try to veer the conversation towards the
> entity-attribute-value model distinct from any RDF specificity since at
> best, its just an optional route.
> What ultimately matters is the ability to refer to entities (real world or
> otherwise) using URIs combined with the ability to craft their digital
> representations via Web documents where content format is varied albeit
> constrained by the same fundamental data model. With the aforementioned in
> place, we can then appreciate the virtues of denoting real world entities
> with URIs that resolves to descriptor documents (or data objects) via
> TimBL veered back to the Linked Data meme because he clearly realized that
> RDF and the Semantic Web Project were veering off course.
> Unfortunately, once the Linked Data meme took off, the gut reaction of the
> RDF & Semantic Web crowd was to once again make a power-play by conflating
> both things. Yes! They decided that it was beneficial to conflate RDF and
> Linked Data, even though history provides ample evidence for the folly
> inherent in such thinking and execution strategy.
>>> I recently wrote RDF2RDB for people who want to use RDF data but do
>>> not want to operate a triple store or learn SPARQL:
>> Yes. Translations in both directions are the minimum requirement for
>> systems to interoperate.
>> But note that it is now 2012. In 2000, Tim B-L emphasized
>> interoperability among heterogeneous systems as a primary requirement
>> for the Semantic Web.
> Yes, and the zealots destroyed all visibility re., that fundamental goal.
>>> Linked Data picks up where OLE-DB, ADO.NET, JDO and the like have
>>> failed woefully, due to myopic platform specificity. It also
>>> addresses to challenging issue of platform agnostic structured data
>>> representation that accommodates multiple syntaxes...
>> That's fine. Tim's vision of 2000 could have addressed those issues.
>> Unfortunately, the SW became narrowed down to what the DAML project
>> was able to implement. I wouldn't expect one implementation project
>> to be able to implement the entire vision in the 2000 proposal.
> Of course not. Again, folks with a different agenda took over. Hence that
>> It's unfortunate that the SW became redefined to just what the DAML
>> implementers were able to finish by 2006 + some incremental refinements.
>> It's time to rethink the goals of the SW and redefine the layer cake
>> to incorporate a broader vision that is closer to original (plus the
>> new ideas that have been introduced since 2000).
> Linked Data is trying to achieve this goal. It isn't RDF syntax or
> serialization specific. Its basically the entity-attribute-value model
> enhanced with URIs and explicit semantics re. subject-predicate-object or
> entity-attribute-value. When all is said and done we have:
> 1. entity-attribute-value + classes and relationships model -- relationship
> semantics are implicit 2. ditto + URIs and explicit relationship semantics
> -- pitched as the RDF model 3. ditto + RDF Schema + OWL - additional
> relationship semantics.
> As I am sure you know, the RDF zealotry can be so chronic that some even
> believe RDF and Semantics are one and the same thing :-(
>>> I recently stumbled over Pat's ISWC 2009 keynote proposing "surfaces"
>>> that would give RDF the full power of FOL
>>> and I wonder if the RDF WG is actually going a bit in that direction.
>>> For example, would it be feasible to realize "surfaces" with a simple
>>> semantic extension to the "RDF Spaces and Datasets"
>> I have no idea what the RDF WG is going to do. But note that Pat was
>> suggesting that RDF evolve in the direction of the existential graphs
>> by Charles Sanders Peirce. The surfaces that Pat mentioned are the
>> "sheets of assertion" that Peirce mentioned.
>> For more about Peirce's existential graphs, you can start with a talk
>> that I presented on the topic:
>> For a more detailed treatment, which includes my commentary on a
>> tutorial that Peirce wrote, see
> Pat is trying to get the current RDF working group to understand this
> matter. He's offered proposals, and folks are warming to his guidance.
> As you know, these matters take time, but I am really confident he will
>>> If we really want to achieve that systems talk a common language for
>>> interoperability and data integration, then we should develop and use
>>> a kind of Formal English (and other formal natural language variants)
>> I agree. Following is a talk I presented about controlled NLs:
> Methinks, we should simply understand semantics and then appreciate how
> they affect expression via languages. There is no perfect language, but
> you can have pretty darn good semantics that are universally understood,
> appreciated, and exploitable via different languages :-)
>> 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
Founder & CEO
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 (06)
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
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 (01)