Kingsley and Sjir, (01)
KI
> Virtuoso (our product) is a SPARQL and SQL hybrid. Guess what?
> DB2 is also such a thing i.e., it has added that dimension.
> Relational DBMS never meant SQL. That's the problem. Relational
> Database Technology is broad. All Graph, RDBMS, Deductive, or
> whatever moniker the market puts on them are a kind of Relational
> Database. (02)
I completely agree with those points. That is why I keep going back
to the work by the DB community on the conceptual schema proposals
from the 1970s to the 1990s. They drew a clear distinction between
the physical storage methods and the logical principles. (03)
KI
> My difference with John is that he is unfairly undermining the current
> state of art re. Webby Relational Database technology.
>
> Facebook, Google etc.. are leveraging the very things espoused by
> the Semantic Web vision etc.. (04)
I'm happy to give full credit for the hard work that has been done by
many people in developing valuable resources and publishing them as LOD. (05)
I also give full credit to Tim B-L for recognizing the importance of
the earlier work and showing its importance for *his* vision of the
Semantic Web. My major criticisms are directed at the DAML final
report of 2005, which was a shadow of Tim's much broader vision in
the original proposal of 2000. My major complaint is that they still
have not begun to support or even discuss Tim's broader vision. (06)
SN
> I agree with John that the SW community seems to prefer to ignore
> what other people have done a long time ago in conceptual modeling.
> That is why Ontology engineering, in my opinion and experience,
> is today where computer programming was in the early sixties. (07)
I completely agree. Sjir was working on the conceptual schema
proposals in the 1970s and '80s. They had very realistic proposals,
whose main weakness was that the DB vendors didn't like them --
primarily because interoperability would kill their monopolies. (08)
Tim B-L was well aware of that work. Unfortunately, the academics
who took over the DAML project didn't want interoperability with
the past for the same reasons as the commercial vendors: they
wanted to promote their own pet ideas. (09)
At least the commercial vendors were more honest. They never
claimed to have a higher goal than making a profit. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|