Kingsley and Len, (01)
I want to emphasize that theoretical issues and practical issues are
*both* important. The best combination is to have developers who
understand both theory and practice. (02)
KI
> I only disagree with John when he pitches Google, Facebook etc..
> as examples of companies that have disregarded the essence of the
> Semantic Web vision etc.. Likewise, when he pits SQL against SPARQL :-) (03)
Two points: (04)
1. I consider Tim B-L as somebody who has a good background in both
theory and practice. I have more sympathy with his vision than
I have with some of the academics who lack his experience. (05)
2. Re SPARQL and SQL: I prefer logic-based notations like Datalog
to either one of them, as notations. But I just want to emphasize
that you can use many different notations (SPARQL, SQL, Datalog,
controlled NLs, conceptual graphs, etc., etc.) with many different
methods for storing the data. (06)
LY
> I disagree with characterization of *semantics* of SQL as purely
> theoretical issue with no significant practical implications... (07)
As I said, theory and practice are both important. In any case,
there are many, many different combinations of notations, logical
expressiveness, and storage methods that have different kinds of
tradeoffs for different kinds of applications. (08)
The worst policy is to make decisions based on one-line slogans
about complicated issues such as decidability, expressive power,
notations, storage methods, CWA, OWA, etc. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|