[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot be comp

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:59:56 -0400
Message-id: <5369696C.60303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 5/6/14 2:24 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> >In time, the AI technologies will eliminate a lot of applications
>> >of Java and its relatives, and ontology development skills will
>> >become part of the mainstream.
> KI
>> >Yes!
> I agree.  But my experience at IBM convinced me of the need for
> a smooth migration path for any new technology.  With it, a mediocre
> design can succeed (eg, Windows or Intel X86).  Without it, superior
> designs are dead on arrival (eg, OS/2 or DEC Alpha). A mediocre design
> without a migration path doesn't have a chance (eg, OWL).
>>> >>But at this time, it [OWL? ontology?] is still a very small community.
>>> >>It will grow.
> KI
>> >Yes, and there's more to come.
> For OWL?  Or for ontology?    (01)

Ontology in general, for which OWL (Web Ontology Language) is an example 
that's being put to practical use.    (02)

I've shared a number of links to practical OWL use-cases that address 
contemporary data integration challenges. If there are superior 
alternatives, shouldn't there be URLs to practical examples, circa., 2014?    (03)

>   I have more faith in Google's R & D than
> in W3C recommendations.    (04)

Google is working with the W3C on these recommendations. Schema.org is a 
community effort comprised of many members and contributors, not just 
Google.    (05)

>   Google knows the importance of migration paths.    (06)

Sorta (in my world view and experience).    (07)

> They adapted existing technology for AJAX, and it grew explosively.    (08)

Hmm.., sorta. Remember, the SQL RDBMS market has also exploded, but the 
market size and market value is deceptive. By that I mean: having a 25 
Billion+ market doesn't really imply:    (09)

1. a majority of users are productive and agile
2. zero opportunity costs -- e.g., the market capitalization of 
Facebook, Google, and every other Web behemoth that's engineered 
alternatives to SQL RDBMS engines is massive relative to the 25 Billion+ 
SQL RDBMS market.    (010)

> They saw Linux and Firefox, and built Android and Chrome on top of them.    (011)

Sorta. I use all of the above, plus iOS, Mac OS X, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX 
etc.. Android isn't a good showcase for constructive "embrace and 
extension" of technology. My experience is quite different, I see all 
the innovation being aimed at making Android a massive AD platform.    (012)

> They saw RDF-XML and replaced the notation with JSON + RDFa.    (013)

They -- who aren't strangers to RDF/XML which was the notation of the 
day, at the time of its creation -- have now adopted the JSON-LD and 
RDFa on the very same basis:    (014)

HTML+JSON-LD (embedded in structured data islands via <script/> and 
HTML+RDFa based markup spaghetti isn't what I would showcase as 
notations that enable users discern and comprehend the utility of entity 
relation semantics. Basically, the problem RDF/XML introduced (i.e., a 
really *horrible* notation for a language that's all about for 
structured data representation endowed with human and machine 
comprehensible entity relation semantics) is being repeated circa., 2014.    (015)

The fact of the matter is that Schema.org is a useful bridge that 
addresses the needs of:    (016)

1. those that want to tag -- entity relations semantics means zilch to 
this user or developer profile
2. those that want to produce some structured data -- but not deeply 
interested in unambiguous entity denotation and entity relation semantics
3. those that care about unambiguous entity denotation and entity 
relation semantics -- but must be willing to write transformer 
(converters) en route the structured data with high-fidelity entity 
relation semantics.    (017)

For middleware types (like us, at OpenLink Software) 1-3 is fine, since 
making transformers is what we do for a living. I don't know how this 
plays out for other vendor and developer profiles though.    (018)

> They saw
> OWL, and replaced it with Schema.org.    (019)

No, they built a bridge. RDFS and OWL are for those interested in #3 above.
> And note that Guha, who had been the associate director of Cyc,
> the chief designer of RDF, and a developer of Schema.org at Google,
> has not abandoned logic or ontology.  But he's not a fan of OWL.    (020)

Hmm..    (021)

> I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with Guha.    (022)

I guess that means you don't dissociate him from RDF/XML and all the 
problems it created for RDF then :-)    (023)

> But I believe that
> his (or at least Google's) migration path is far superior to OWL's.    (024)

I don't see Schema.org and OWL as being mutually exclusive. How are you 
arriving at this conclusion in regards to mutually exclusivity?    (025)

> John    (026)

--     (027)

Regards,    (028)

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    (029)

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>