On Mar 4, 2006, at 09:26 , Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote: (01)
> Mathew,
> Since the large ontology-based applications that will be useful for
> major problems are likely to use relational databases (or their
> equivalent) as their back-end, what is the problem with saying that
> the
> capabilities of such systems are more advanced than the
> capabilities of
> database systems alone? (02)
Because it's hype that has not been substantiated by experience.
Hype is bad. If we're not careful we're going over-hype all of this
and create ourselves another "AI winter". (03)
Secondly, you have to be careful about what you mean by saying "more
advanced". Take Oracle's RDFS store for example. Many consider RDFS
to be "semantic technology" or even "ontology" (god help us!). It is
built as a straightforward extension of Oracle's relational
technology. Now, do you think RDFS is "more advanced" than relational? (04)
> They are indeed not "competing" but they are
> also not "complementary"; the larger ontology-based systems will build
> on and extend the database systems. (05)
What "larger ontology-based systems"? Which ones do you have in
mind? What precisely do these systems do? I'm getting the feeling
that you're talking about something very comprehensive like Cyc...
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (06)
|