On 2/1/13 11:15 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Michael, Adrian, and Kingsley,
>
> You have all made good points. The message that comes through is that
> nobody has yet discovered an ideal representation that covers all the
> bases while supporting both legacy systems and future innovations. (01)
I strongly believe that an entity relationship model based graph endowed
with machine and human comprehensible entity relationship semantics is a
solid base. I also believe in the virtuosity of hyperlink based super
keys that resolve to the aforementioned graphs. (02)
I really believe what I've stated above is really a fusion of: (03)
1. http://bit.ly/T3kWUv -- Peter Chen's dissertation circa. 1976.
2. http://slidesha.re/SbfHQG -- You .
3. http://bit.ly/WFKnJP -- TimBL's DAML proposal. (04)
Unfortunately, in our imperfect world, RDF go off to a horrible start
via RDF/XML (concept obfuscator extraordinaire). Those days are now
behind us, Turtle is the marquee notation for expressing RDF model based
entity relationship graphs. It is now possible to teach kids what they
already know re. sentence structure and its ability to enable us share
data, information, and knowledge via writing etc. (05)
>
> There is also a question of whether any *single* representation could
> ever be ideal. I believe that Tim B-L was on the right track when
> he emphasized diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability. (06)
As you now, if the entity relationship semantics are machine and human
comprehensible the cost of translation and transformation drop. The key
gripe (you and many others have) re. RDF 1.0 (the RDF/XML mangled
edition) is the the following where utterly conflated: (07)
1. Model -- entities, relationships, and roles
2. Syntax -- subject->predicate->object
3. Notation -- Turtle, RDFa, RDF/XML etc..
4. Serialization Formats -- Turtle, RDFa, RDF/XML etc. (08)
#1 is expressible via graphs endowed with explicit machine and human
comprehensible semantics. Sadly, early RDF/XML laden promotion of RDF
created the illusion that RDF/XML (a syntax notation) uniquely implied
semantics :-( (09)
>
> I'll start with Michael's comment:
>
> MB
>> The reason that Google is still very successful is that they are
>> doing such a good job that a bunch of geeks with distributed
>> hash tables is not able to beat them. (010)
Temporality is a Web feature. In addition, success is subjective. The
notion of wealth and worth being equivalent is itself about the feel the
effects of the Web and Internet inflection, methinks. (011)
> I agree. But I would add that Bing got started later, they don't
> have as big a collection of documents as Google, but they are
> producing comparable results.
>
> The greatest strength of both Google and Bing is that they aren't
> dedicated to a single ideology. They do whatever works. (012)
No, they are dedicated to a single ideology: profit is a zero sum game :-)
>
> AW
>> You wrote...
>>
>>> As for webifying a version of SQL, that would be fairly easy to do.
>> In one sense that's been in operation of a number of years now.
> I agree. My major complaint about the SW is that it's dominated
> by ideologues who try to force everything into a single silo. (013)
Yes, that has happened, and does pop up from time to time. I wouldn't
say that profile is dominant though. (014)
> I have no objection to anyone using RDF, SPARQL, and OWL when
> they're useful. But their advocates use the word 'webify' as
> a weapon for purging anything they don't like. (015)
Webify is more in the spirit of putting the "Web" back into efforts such
as "The Semantic Web Project" [1]. (016)
>
> Google, Bing, and other successful companies on the WWW do not
> use the word 'webify'. They do whatever works. (017)
But what works for them typically works against the essence of the Web.
Publishing content and sharing a hyperlink to said content is an
important selfless act. Google wouldn't even exist without the Web. (018)
>
> KI
>> Google, Bing, and others are silos. I am in the business of silo-busting
>> via Web architecture and open standards.
> I am very strongly in favor of open standards. Tim B-L was promoting
> open standards, but he also recognized the importance of existing
> open standards and practices. (019)
Yes, many of us do, not just him. (020)
>
> The most successful web companies are more consistent with Tim's
> original vision: they support diversity, heterogeneity, and
> interoperability. That's a major reason for their success. (021)
Yes, I agree with that :-) (022)
Links: (023)
1. http://bit.ly/YtcUs7 -- circa. 2005 presentation by TimBL titled:
Putting the Web back in Semantic Web .
2.
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/D7.1.3%20-%20Study%20on%20persistent%20URIs.pdf (024)
-- recent EU guidelines . (025)
Kingsley
>
> 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
>
>
> (026)
-- (027)
Regards, (028)
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
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 (029)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|