Mr. Sowa, (01)
Would you be so kind as to express your displeasure with RDF in just as few of
implement bullets as you would, please. Why are "RDF formats" wrong for the
working Ontologist? (02)
Secondly, can you briefly express how you are able to embrace *ML for a data
representation when in many cases the data is a byte or two, but the tag is
ten, twenty, or worst? (03)
Even if there is little value in RDF, is it true or false that the inferencing
capability from SPARQL allows for a combined tell-and-ask system that has value? (04)
Finally, what is the comparable query mechanism for *ML as SPARQL for RDF,
RDFS-plus, and OWL? (05)
Oops,that causes yet one further question. Allemang and Hendler's book,
Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist, speaks of RDFS-plus. I am still
working to understand, but what is your take on RDFS-plus as they express it? (06)
Thank you kindly,
Ray (07)
On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:13 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (08)
> Kingsley,
>
> My general point about any technology is simple:
>
> Anything that anybody has found to be useful is indeed useful.
>
>> Is there any chance that you can accept this important change to RDF
>> i.e., reflect the decoupled nature of RDF (expressed in RDF 1.1)
>> in the talk I referred to above?
>
> I "accept" RDF in the same way as Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, and
> many others. If anybody has produced any useful data in RDF form,
> I would map it into formats I prefer. But I cannot foresee any
> reason why I would choose to base a new project on RDF formats.
>
> Re XML: I have been using *ML formats for word processing since the
> 1970s (that is when I began to use IBM's GML). I formatted my 1984
> book in camera-ready copy with GML. When HTML came out, I switched
> my word processing to HTML, which I now import into OpenOffice or
> LibreOffice to produce other formats, such as PDF, DOC, PPT, etc.
>
> In the 1980a, I participated in computational linguistics projects
> when I argued for SGML as a good notation for tagging documents
> with semantic information.
>
> But tags such as <script> and </script> have proved to be the
> *preferred* way to embed languages such as JavaScript, JSON,
> PHP, etc., into *ML documents.
>
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|