On 2/1/13 1:16 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 2/1/2013 12:04 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> 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.
> I support that as a good base, but more is needed.
>> I really believe what I've stated above is really a fusion of:
>> 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.
> I can't complain, since my slides summarize most of the other
> points I'd like to make. If anybody would prefer to download
> the slides, see http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/iss.pdf
>> The key gripe (you and many others have) re. RDF 1.0 (the RDF/XML
>> mangled edition) is the the following where utterly conflated:
>> 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.
> I agree.
>>> The greatest strength of both Google and Bing is that they aren't
>>> dedicated to a single ideology. They do whatever works.
>> No, they are dedicated to a single ideology: profit is a zero sum game
> We all need to make a profit in order to stay in business. So I don't
> think that either of us can complain too hard. (01)
Yes, but there is a critical point sometimes overlooked when the subject
matter is 'Business'. It used be that 'Business Models' were about
iterative 'Value' production and compensation. Unfortunately, 'Money' as
mechanism for facilitating value exchange has resulted in the unintended
consequence of reducing the nature and quality of 'Value'. (02)
We should always seek to sustain value production with via business
models within as virtuous an ecosystem as is feasible. (03)
Today, Web 2.0 is imploding because the dominant business models are all
variations of the "switch and bait" combined with the surreptitious
acquisition and harvesting of personal data etc.. (04)
We can have Linked (Open Standards based) Data based data as an integral
part of the Web's fabric while also laying the foundation for new and
much more constructive business models that are highly virtuous too. (05)
Personally, I've never struggled with the concept of viable business
models that work on the Web modulo all the fatal flaws that drive Web
2.0 models today. In my eyes, the biggest hurdle in infighting amongst
those that actually understand the potential and promise of the Web.
Once we start collaborating more, the business model opportunities will
be much clearer. (06)
> And it's not a zero
> sum game -- unless one or another of the companies become a monopoly.
> There was some danger of that with MSFT, and now with Google. (07)
>> Webify is more in the spirit of putting the "Web" back into efforts
>> such as "The Semantic Web Project" .
> I agree. But some people have implied that it requires software to be
> rewritten before it can interoperate. (09)
They are missing the point, for sure :-) (010)
> Trillions of dollars have been
> invested in the software that runs the world economy, and it won't
> be replaced for a long, long time. (011)
And it shouldn't be. Personally, I prefer software engineered in the
60's to software engineered today, its more solid, and crashing isn't an
acceptable feature. I am only 47, but I truly appreciate the folks that
preceded this era of software engineering.
> A great deal of that software interoperates with the WWW by connecting
> with front ends that use HTML. Everybody on this list has undoubtedly
> interacted with the Sabre System. IBM and American Airlines developed
> it in the early '60s, and it still supports reservation systems around
> the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_%28computer_system%29 (012)
Yes, that's the point I am expressing above. There is serious software
engineering problem that many don't see on the horizon i.e., at some
point, the resilient software built in the 60's will need replacing.
Assuming today's cadre of software engineers will simply slip in and
address problem is terrifying to me! (013)
>>> Google, Bing, and other successful companies on the WWW do not
>>> use the word 'webify'. They do whatever works.
>> 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.
> I don't want to defend everything that Google does, but they have
> XML (or JSON) for AJAX (which they used for Gmail and Maps).
> an open standard -- and I strongly endorse that idea. (014)
Yes, and they've done very well with Schema.org. That's a major
contribution. Where I get concerned is their assault URIs . (015)
> IBM is another company that hired Guha when RDF looked like
> a winner. But they developed UIMA as another XML-based notation
> for NLP because they believed it was more efficient than RDF.
> Then they donated the UIMA tools to the Apache Foundation. (016)
As stated in the past, Watson is a great example of the combined prowess
of NLP, Linked Data, and Reasoning . (017)
> By the way, IBM used UIMA as the general interchange format
> for all the components of Watson. And they're continuing to
> develop it for other NLP projects -- including medical records.
> (And their primary storage medium is a relational DB.) (018)
DB2 (like Virtuoso) is a multi-model DBMS :-) (019)
>>> 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.
>> Yes, I agree with that
> That point of agreement is the most important one I'd like
> to emphasize for this thread. (020)
1. http://bit.ly/LFt9al -- Google Knowledge Graph, Linked Data, and the
Semantic Web .
2. http://bit.ly/NZ18Rg -- ditto but with other examples etc..
3. http://dashes.com/anil/2012/12/the-web-we-lost.html -- Web we lost
4. http://youtu.be/XShMSu68QPc?a -- IBM donates a Watson cluster to RPI . (022)
> 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 (026)
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)