[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:15:20 -0500
Message-id: <52F50698.8040202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2/7/14 9:36 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Kingsley and Tara,
> I agree with both of you.
> KI
>> If they [Amazon, Google, Facebook, LinkedIn...] used RDF
>> (forget about the RDF/XML notation) they would have
>> a much better system.
> Yes.  My only addition is that we need upward compatible extensions.
> OWL is one example.  My only complaint about OWL is the word 'the'
> in front of the name.    (01)

Yes, the use of "The" is rampant in dialog around technologies relating 
to W3C specs. This is indeed a problem, one that many do not immediately 
recognize at first blush. I consider it a kind of passive-aggressive 
mode to marketing that's inherently divisive, as demonstrated by "The 
Semantic Web" meme and the negative role of RDF/XML.    (02)

This passive-aggressive issue leads to cognitively dissonant debates 
that generate comments such as: you are talking about "semantic web" and 
I am talking about "The Semantic Web" etc..    (03)

>    If they called OWL "A Web Ontology Language",
> I'd be happy.  But note the comments below.    (04)

Yes, for sure!
> TA
>> The very idea of schemas for JSON is anathema to many JSON users,
>> so don't expect much support from the community for this.
> I agree that unrestricted JSON is a meaningless notation.  It's worse
> than unrestricted natural language, because it provides the *illusion*
> of being precise.
> TA
>> The XML schema description language (XSD) certainly has many
>> shortcomings, but there are other options, especially Relax NG,
>> NVDL and Schematron (http://dsdl.org/), all supported by tools
>> like oXygen (http://oxygenxml.com)
> The growth of multiple specification languages is fine -- provided
> that there is a systematic way to relate their semantics to one
> another.
> There will never be "One ring to rule them all."  But we can have
> better methods for relating them and supporting interoperability.
> John
> ________________________________________________________________
>    (05)

Yes! And therein lies a contradiction not recognized by some that 
espouse Semantic Web openness and de-centralization while being utterly 
intolerant of alternative world views -- in regards to how logic, 
structured data, and relation semantics get woven into the World Wide 
Web or any other HTTP based network, for that matter.    (06)

--     (07)

Regards,    (08)

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen    (09)

Attachment: 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)

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