On 9/26/13 4:04 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 7:18 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Times have changed because we now have ubiquitous document
>> and data networks for the masses.
> Yes, times have changed. But the fundamental principles have not. (01)
The fundamental principles have new context. (02)
Data issues are longer nascent and somewhat lost is marketing babble
spewed by DBMS vendors. My data and applications that help me work with
my data are too distinct things. The need to loosely couple Data and
Applications (including DBMS engines) was so clear in the past. (03)
>
>> This makes a big difference. Construction, publication, and
>> consumption of data is much easier.
> Yes. Those developments make certain applications practical that were
> only imagined 40 years ago. (04)
Due to the evolution that's occurred in our innovation continuum. (05)
> We can expect developments in the next 40
> years that will be at least as revolutionary or more so. (06)
Of course! At least that's what I hope. (07)
>
> But we can also expect principles of good design that have stood the
> test of time for 40 years or more to remain good principles 40 years
> from now. (08)
Yes, of course.
>
> Aristotle's syllogisms from 2300 years ago are still the most widely
> used subset of OWL. And Aristotle's notation is still easier to teach,
> learn, and use than much of the new stuff. (09)
Yes. Likewise, I prefer our conceptual graph notations to those used by
the W3C. For instance, you don't make the mistake of using literals to
denote relations which ultimately ensures confusion. (010)
[subject]-->--(relation)--->---[object] (011)
Is much clearer than: (012)
[subject] -- predicate --> [object] (013)
>
> The basic operators of FOL are embedded in all the major languages
> of the world: and, or, not, if, some, every. Language forms based
> on them are easy for people to learn and use.
>
> LISP was a good way to implement lists in 1955. That encoding is
> still widely used today. And LISP-like notations such as JSON
> have better human factors than certain others that were proposed. (014)
No disagreement. They all benefit from the incorporation of URIs that
enable data representation to become web-like. (015)
>
> Type hierarchies from at least 200 AD (probably earlier) are still
> good ways of showing ontologies. Bachman diagrams from the 1960s
> are still good ways of showing the argument types of relations
> and their cardinality restrictions -- i.e., E-R diagrams.
>
> It's essential to learn from the successful systems of the past
> and discover what properties made them successful. (016)
Yes, and I've never (and never will) disagree with that.
>
> Chief characteristic of legacy software: Too good to discard.
Software exhibiting those characteristics are the exception rather than
the norm. Most are just the result of hard-nosed-lock-in by vendors
especially RDBMS vendors :-( (017)
>
> John
>
>
>
> (018)
-- (019)
Regards, (020)
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 (021)
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)
|