On 9/27/13 3:24 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 9/27/2013 1:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> To what degree did data-silo-fication matter (in the minds or users and
>> IT decision makers) prior to the ubiquitous Web and Internet explosions?
> That was the central focus of the conceptual schema (CS) work during
> the 1970s. Their goal was to define the conceptual schema as the
> semantic specification language (roughly speaking, logic + ontology).
> In fact, my first publication on conceptual graphs addressed that issue:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/cg1976.pdf
> Conceptual graphs for a database interface (01)
Yes, I read that paper. 1976 was clearly an insightful year :-) (02)
>
> Then the APIs for all applications, the physical DBs (network,
> relational, or hierarchical), and the user interface would be
> mapped to and from the CS.
>
> That would enable applications and user interfaces to be independent
> of the details of the physical storage. You could mix & match them
> in any combination. (03)
Yes! (04)
>
>> Yes, but what happened after that, following the rise of the SQL RDBMS?
> Unfortunately, certain vendors correctly saw that the CS could weaken
> their market dominance. (05)
Exactly. (06)
> So they blocked all attempts to define a
> standard for the conceptual schema. (07)
Yep! (08)
> That project ended as an ANSI
> technical report in 1978. It was later revived by ISO, and ended as
> an ISO TR in 1987 and another TR in 1999. No standards. (09)
And they've played this game successfully for years. It's taken the
combined effects of the Web and Internet to create an industry
inflection that's finally altered the landscape -- for these
counter-productive RDBMS vendor patterns.
>
> JFS
>>> In comparison, I would call the SW hype naive, provincial, and
>>> based on wishful thinking that was untested against reality.
> KI
>> Methinks, too harsh, even on its very worst "poor narrative" day :-)
> Maybe. But my "harsh" words are the result of my frustration with
> the lost opportunity. (010)
I understand the frustration, believe me I do. That said, I also believe
the opportunity isn't lost thanks to the principles that underlie Linked
Open Data. (011)
> I had hoped that an SW along the lines of TBL's
> DAML proposal could produce a conceptual schema that was outside the
> clutches of the DB vendors -- but interoperable with them. (012)
That's exactly where we are headed. It's what Linked Open Data is all
about i.e., delivering Open Data Connectivity and Open Database
Connectivity [1] etc.. (013)
[1] http://bit.ly/15zUSDa -- Data Connectivity & Database Connectivity
Pathways Illustrated (draft) . (014)
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
>
>
> (015)
-- (016)
Regards, (017)
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 (018)
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)
|