Dear John, (01)
>> Accordingly I believe that Ontolog's 2014 communique should be extremely
>> clear: the current W3 RDF methodology for property specification is
>> fatally flawed and must be aligned with FOL'ers requirements. (02)
from what I recall this year's summit is named 'Big Data and Semantic
Web Meet Applied Ontology'. Statements like the one above are for sure
the very best way to alienate most Semantic Webbers and Linked Data
researchers. (03)
Best,
Krzysztof (04)
On 01/21/2014 09:01 PM, John McClure wrote:
> Hi John-
> Thanks for the level headed reply in the face of the weak sarcasm in my
> last communique - please accept my apology for that! It's clearer to me
> now there are two groups of folks here, what one might call the FOL
> crew, and the other the RDF crew.
>
> This latest exchange perhaps could not be a better example of the
> problem here, or maybe it's just my problem. When I said 'reuse' was the
> promise yet to be delivered, I didn't stop to consider that FOL'ers
> couldn't give a tinkerer's damn about reuse because FOL'ers tend to view
> themselves as pure consumers, end-nodes, data scientists. However
> RDF'ers do not; their projects are front-line operational systems using
> the tools that, by your OWN account, John, originated because those used
> by FOL'ers were "_/*too complex for most people*/_".
>
> I appreciated the links you included -- you're always a source of
> fabulous information -- because the more closely I've looked at them, I
> see that FOL'ers predicates are, indeed, verbs and prepositions, just
> what I have been saying needs to be done -- must be done -- by the
> RDF'ers if we're ever to get to a higher plane of ontology reuse. In
> other words, I expect FOL'ers like yourself to be among the most ardent
> supporters in absolutely rejecting the /crappy noun-oriented predicates/
> (like &p3p;purposeOptIn) that now poisons the RDF'ers world. And poisons
> the working relationship between FOL'ers and RDF'ers, as you so very
> clearly indicate when you thinly say
>
> If somebody gives them data in that format, the first thing they do is to
>convert it to a more usable form
>
> Well, "that format" is what the RDF'ers produce. What is recommended by
> the W3, that's we produce. How can FOL'ers not be implicitly derisive of
> the work RDF'ers are diligently about, when the first reaction is to
> THROW IT AWAY?
>
> Accordingly I believe that Ontolog's 2014 communique should be extremely
> clear: the current W3 RDF methodology for property specification is
> fatally flawed and must be aligned with FOL'ers requirements.
>
> regards/jmc
>
> On 1/21/2014 6:44 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> On 1/21/2014 6:15 PM, John McClure wrote:
>>> how do I answer questions such as recently asked re a Privacy Ontology:
>>>
>>> why start from scratch when others already have spent much time to
>>> create distinctions? P3P 1.1:http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P11/
>>>
>>> "Reuse" was the promise; empirically it has not been delivered - why not?
>> The fatal flaw was the confusion of reuse with the idea that all details
>> have to be represented in the same notation at the same level.
>>
>> The packet switching of TCP/IP is the level where the bits and bytes
>> of a file are assembled in packets and sent across the wires or waves.
>> That was the level to address privacy (and thwart "packet sniffing").
>> But when Arpanet was designed in the late 1960s, privacy issues were
>> poorly understood.
>>
>> When Tim B-L and his group implemented http on top of the Internet
>> and combined it with SGML, their goal was to make research papers
>> on physics freely available to researchers around the world.
>> Privacy was not a requirement.
>>
>> JFS
>>>> If somebody gives them [advanced AI systems] data in RDF format,
>>>> the first thing they do is to convert it to a more usable form.
>> JM
>>> Oh, what form is that, please. CycL?
>> CycL was, in fact, the basis for RDF. R. V. Guha, who worked with
>> Tim Bray to specify RDF, had been the associate director of the Cyc
>> project. He realized the CycL was too complex for most people, and
>> he wanted to specify a simple, but usable subset.
>>
>> Guha had many years of experience in using LISP for implementing
>> CycL, and he wanted to use a LISP-based notation for RDF. However,
>> the W3C was trying to promote XML, and they made the mistake of
>> voting to use XML for everything. That is another horrible
>> example of design by committee.
>>
>> JM
>>> And what happens to "reuse" in this process?
>> There had been 40 years of using LISP for the most advanced AI
>> projects, and 0 years of using *ML languages for anything other
>> than annotating and formatting documents. During those 40 years,
>> programs, data, and ontologies had been circulated in punched cards,
>> tapes, disks, and networks among researchers around the world.
>>
>> The saddest part of the story is that Guha and Bray were working
>> at Netscape when they defined RDF. At that time, Netscape had
>> developed JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) -- which was basically
>> LISP notation with brackets and curly braces. If they had adopted
>> JSON as the notation, they could have had Schema.org in 1999.
>>
>> John
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Msg Archives:http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>> Subscribe/Config:http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>> Unsubscribe:mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Files:http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
>> Community Wiki:http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>> Community Portal:http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (05)
--
Krzysztof Janowicz (06)
Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 (07)
Email: jano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|