Pat and David, (01)
PH
> David, by all means, you go on doing whatever it is you do with JCL, and
> the rest of the world can be doing semantic things with RDF and OWL. (02)
David's point is actually well taken: for something as simple as RDF,
the complexity is not in the language, but in the choices about what
to describe and what aspects to represent. (03)
A typical JCL card, for example, has the following syntax: (04)
'//' Name Relation List (05)
The most common relation is DD for data definition. All the complexity
lies in the list of options. For a subject is as complex as OS/360
and its successors, the simplicity of the language is irrelevant. (06)
DE
> How do the so called semantics of RDF make it any easier for a newbie
> to understand the intent of what the code is doing or supposed to do? (07)
Macintosh is supposedly easy -- but the primary reason is that Steve J.
eliminated all options (at least for most users). But under the covers
of OS X, there is all the complexity of Unix. (08)
The fundamental problem of ontology is managing the complexity --
and doing so in a way that people can understand. (09)
Steve J's greatest talent was in making simple tasks simple,
sweeping the complexity under the rug, and keeping it there. * (010)
John (011)
* PS: At least for the average user. The original Macintosh was
built on a nightmare of spaghetti code. Unix, by comparison, was
a huge simplification for the programmers who did the dirty work. (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|