ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] fitness of XML for ontology (WAS: [ontology-summit]

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:05:25 -0800
Message-id: <CF1555A0.2C56C5%duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John:

I disagree.    There are no dependencies or reliance upon JSON expressed in the core model which creates two things:
  1. It allows models for dialects like RDF (or any other format) to be expressed independent of a syntax binding;
  2. It allows for dialects like RDfFto be expressed in RDF if required;
  3. #1 (above) also facilitates that models are abstract and therefore can be expressed in any number of bindings.
In short, this is the proper architecture paradigm (my opinion) when compared with a model that is tightly bound to the transport or _expression_ format and syntaxes that are dependent upon specific domain models.

Duane
***********************************
Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
i.  Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
t.  @duanenickull




From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 3 February, 2014 1:38 PM
To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] fitness of XML for ontology (WAS: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet))

Duane,

Please see my comments below. -John Bottoms

On 2/3/2014 3:27 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
inline:


On 2014-02-03 12:15 PM, "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2/3/2014 12:55 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
XMl has nothing to do with semantics.

XML has the ability to make data portable and can be used to transfer
ontological or semantic models, or fragments thereof, between
applications.
I agree with both of those points.

JSON notation (or the very similar LISP notation) could have been
adopted by the W3C for exactly the same purposes, but without the bloat
or excessive coding.  LISP, for example, has a built-in parser that
requires only two operators: CAR and CDR.  (AKA head and tail.)
The W3C has recently adopted a methodology whereby they will define a
technology (like RDF), then define bindings using various syntaxes like
JSN or XML.  This is the proper way to architect interchange formats IMO
as they are developed from a good model.

Duane Nickull

Yes, I do understand that is what W3C is doing. And no, I'm not sure is the right thing to do.

Stacks essentially trace their beginnings back to Dijkstra's "THE multiprogramming system (Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven)".
"The constraint that higher layers can only depend on lower layers was imposed by the designers in order to make reasoning about the system (using quasi-formal methods) more tractable, and also to facilitate building and testing the system incrementally.
(THE multiprogramming system wikipedia entry)

[if you are interested his PhD thesis is at: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/PhDthesis/PhDthesis.PDF]

The important kernel of the layer system, which ultimately became the ISO standard for communications, is that messages are passed between layers and layers do not "dip into" other layers structures. The only place I have seen exceptions to this is in tunneling, in communications, where priority or time take precedence. When binding between layers takes place you are effectively gluing the layers together and that removes a critical open architecture feature; namely the ability for any other component to talk to that interface. IP solve this problem by having a field that specifies who (which protocol) the message should be sent to. This way the forwarder can send the message to TCP, Telnet or DLSw.

The W3C approach can be followed but if it is a static one-to-one binding then we will lose the flexibility that has been developed for so many years. Further, the binding requires compatible updates between the layers or something will get broken when the layer specifications are updated. The IP approach allowed for the addition of new numeric values without changes to the protocols or layers when protocols were modified or new ones added. All the protocols have standard numeric values that are kept in tables so the forwarders can operate across many different protocols. Notice that this design contains no bindings. All forwarding is dynamically determined.

<rant>The more I see of W3C architectures, the more it looks like an intentionally arthritic skeleton, designed to prevent usefully flexible designs.
I am beginning to think it is time for an web system designed by scientists, not programmers.</rant>


-John Bottoms
 FirstStar Systems
 Concord, MA USA


_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>