David et al,
Last month (Aug.) NIST released a document on taxonomies for Big
Data. It is interesting to this discussion in part because it
includes an architectural drawing and addresses interfaces to legacy
systems.
Further, in describing the basic architecture for Big Data, they
briefly discuss their architectural view of analytics and taxonomies.
In looking at taxonomy papers that have been published recently,
it is apparent that the definition and use of the term "taxonomy"
is malleable. Perhaps that is ok for now because a broad
definition may be appropriate for the level of development.
The paper is a MSWord document,
NIST Big Data: Definitions and Taxonomies", is at:
http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/_uploadfiles/M0142_v4_2364649822.docx
(
http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/_uploadfiles/M0142_v4_2364649822.docx)
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
On 9/27/2013 6:23 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
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
Yes, I read that paper. 1976 was clearly an insightful year :-)
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.
Yes!
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.
Exactly.
So they blocked all attempts to define a
standard for the conceptual schema.
Yep!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
[1] http://bit.ly/15zUSDa -- Data Connectivity & Database
Connectivity Pathways Illustrated (draft) .
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|