|
On 11/30/2013 9:46 AM, John F Sowa
wrote:
Pat and David,
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.
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.
I agree. The best ontological approach would
be to develop a paradigm that permits linked data but which also
addresses other valid ontological needs. Legacy systems are
significantly important commercial systems and if they are not in
the mix for ontologies, then that need is going unmet. Other
paradigms are already taking proprietary steps to meet needs that
would normally be addressed in a classic ontology system. If the
W3C approach addresses those needs then we should be able to
explain how it does that.
That being said, there are situations which need meta- or
contextual information while there are others do not. If one is
talking about instances, then that is clearly a situation which
likely requires an understanding of the context. Discussing
abstract classes does not require a particular context, but does
require a broad understanding of the domain or relevant situations
so relations and constraints can be properly crafted (see "bricoleur" ).
A typical JCL card, for example, has the following syntax:
'//' Name Relation List
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.
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?
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.
The fundamental problem of ontology is managing the complexity --
and doing so in a way that people can understand.
Steve J's greatest talent was in making simple tasks simple,
sweeping the complexity under the rug, and keeping it there. *
John
* 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|