uos-convene
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL

To: "Upper Ontology Summit convention" <uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:11:01 -0500
Message-id: <6ACD6742E291AF459206FFF2897764BE97C155@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill,
   I am sure that the panelists wouldn't want to put out a statement
that appears to go beyond what can be supported by actual experience or
solid projections from experience.  Perhaps you could formulate a
rephrasal of that sentence that expresses the value added by ontologies
to traditional systems?  The original point 1 from the "conclusions in
brief" was:    (01)

1) We agree that the technology of modeling and representing knowledge
has developed to the point where it is feasible to create
knowledge-based reasoning systems with information analysis and
exploitation capabilities significantly more advanced than traditional
systems based on relational databases and object-oriented programming
without semantic interpretation.    (02)

Pat    (03)


Patrick Cassidy
MITRE Corporation
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
Phone: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
Fax: 732-578-6012
Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (04)


-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill
Andersen
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:24 PM
To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: Re: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL    (05)

Hey Pat.    (06)

You make a good point.  See below.    (07)

Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
> 
> Isn't that what Ontology Works's system does - add to the
capabilities 
> of database systems alone?  How do you characterize the advantage
that 
> your programs have over traditional databases?  What does your 
> advertising say?    (08)

This is the problem having the job that I have.  I have an industrial 
hat and an academic hat.  What we say (although I didn't write it)
below 
is literally true in an industrial sense.  Although as an academic I 
suppose I realize how far we are from the limit case.  Combining the
two 
makes me cautious.    (09)

At the current stage of maturity (and I include our stuff in this) the 
applications for which ontology has really been exercised in database 
environments represent an improvement over traditional database 
technology in *some* areas.  The two big wins in my mind are the
ability 
to manage more complexity in the models with less human effort, and the    (010)

ability to implement that complex logic with less effort.  It's all 
about the economics of building complex databases.  But I wouldn't want    (011)

to use say, our system, to run a OLTP application.  Not yet.  We're not    (012)

there at this stage.    (013)

I guess all I'm calling for is restraint.  The more grounded our
claims, 
both theoretical and empirical, the greater the chance that
applications 
  of ontology to information systems will get a chance to mature before    (014)

a wave of conspicuous failures (wrt expectations) undermine commercial 
support.    (015)

> Or to put it another way - is this "hype"?? (emphasis added)
> 
> OWI database products - The Knowledge Server(tm) (KS(tm) ) and the 
> High-Performance Knowledge Server(tm) (HPKS(tm) ) - represent the
most 
> advanced and mature products of their kind. The KS(tm) is the first
product 
> to execute ontologies in a transactional database environment; the
HPKS(tm) 
> scales that technology to manage terabytes of information. The
HPKS(tm) 
> leverages Objectivity/DB(tm) - an advanced database that eliminates
costly 
> JOIN tables - to deliver for the first time scalable information
storage 
> and query performance to a high-fidelity information model
environment. 
> The HPKS(tm) solves the most demanding analytic information
management 
> problems by design, _supporting applications that until now were 
> impossible to realize with traditional relational database systems_. 
> These servers provide the essential capabilities to make possible 
> complex applications, among these capabilities is fact-level security    (016)

> and support for "what if" analysis.
> 
> Guess where that came from.  (I think those statements may be
correct)
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> Patrick Cassidy
> MITRE Corporation
> 260 Industrial Way
> Eatontown, NJ 07724
> Mail Stop: MNJE
> Phone: 732-578-6340
> Cell: 908-565-4053
> Fax: 732-578-6012
> Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> 
>     (017)

--     (018)

--    (019)

Bill Andersen
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (http://www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444
 _________________________________________________________________
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
 _________________________________________________________________
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    (020)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>