[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF and XML

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:27:51 -0400
Message-id: <51C5FAB7.2030907@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat,    (01)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with all your observations.    (02)

> I find this idea - of basing SWeb formalisms on Common Logic - completely
> unworkable.  Not for technical reasons, but for political/social ones.    (03)

Yes.  That is painfully obvious.    (04)

> Just using the word "semantics" is widely seen in many communities
> as likely to destroy any chances of wide adoption of any technology.    (05)

I have seen that happen many times.  I worked at IBM for 30 years.
In IBM Research, it was acceptable and even expected that one would
use the word 'logic'.  But in the development divisions, it would
immediately produce the MEGO effect (Mine Eyes Glaze Over).    (06)

A comment from a manager in one of the development labs: "That sounds
complicated, and we have very simple people."  His mind was actually
much simpler than the people who reported to him.  (See Dilbert.)    (07)

> you have to sneak new ideas into people's heads without them realizing it.
> Telling them to translate everything into ISO-CL is not a good way to do that.    (08)

I agree.    (09)

> Giving them a way to use JSON that makes in, invisibly, into a fairly
> compact notation for RDF is a good sneaky start. Tweaking the RDF data
> model so that it becomes a variant of Peirce's existential graph notation
> (see http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/blogic-iswc-2009-invited-talk )
> would be a good sneaky next step.    (010)

Yes, I enjoyed your talk, and I recommend it.  I have given many talks
on Peirce's EGs, and I got some enthusiastic comments from people who
said that they never understood logic in they way it had been taught.    (011)

In any case, I believe that a two-pronged attack would be useful:
convince the theoreticians that CL semantics is theoretically great,
and convince developers by implementing software that makes money.    (012)

But I admit that neither prong is easy.  A theoretician whose primary
goal is to keep rewriting his dissertation until he gets it right
is just as recalcitrant as any pointy-haired manager.    (013)

John    (014)

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    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>