Dear Mike, (01)
> Traditional systems based on rdbs and oop have some inherent
> limitations
> due to the fact that there is no semantic interpretation. Semantic
> technologies, used [possibly in conjunction with] more traditional
> technologies can overcome some of these limitations. (02)
MW: I still disagree. Traditional systems may or may not have a
semantic interpretation. That depends on the design approach that was
taken. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Uschold,
> Michael F
> Sent: 07 March 2006 04:10
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
>
>
> THIRDED
>
> I'm not sure what specification vs. implementation has to do with the
> statement, Bill can you elaborate?
>
> At first I thought I disagreed, but now I think that I agree with what
> was perhaps the intended meaning. I think that the wording may be
> ambiguous (surprise...).
>
> Here is what I think/hope most of us could agree to, that is
> implicit in
> this statement:
>
> Traditional systems based on rdbs and oop have some inherent
> limitations
> due to the fact that there is no semantic interpretation. Semantic
> technologies, used [possibly in conjunction with] more traditional
> technologies can overcome some of these limitations.
> --
>
> Btw, lets name the key limitations!
> The flip side of this is echoed by Bill too: we should be
> specific as to
> the manner in which semantic based systems are 'more advanced'.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Andersen [mailto:andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:45 AM
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] KBR vs SQL
>
> SECONDED.
>
> The statement Matthew is objecting to is another example of the hype I
> see every day surrounding ontologies and their use. The fundamental
> flaw in this paragraph is that it does not distinguish between
> specification and implementation and can be shown trivially
> to be false.
>
> Plus, we may not like these traditional systems but we'd
> better learn
> to live with them because they're not going anywhere for a while.
> Nobody's going to go out and replace their finely-tuned terabyte
> databases with anyone's main-memory theorem prover any time soon :-D
>
> On Mar 4, 2006, at 06:43 , West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
>
> > Dear Ray,
> >
> > The first "conclusion in brief" is:
> >
> > "(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."
> >
> > Well I don't agree.
> >
> > Ontology can help improve the design of systems using traditional
> > technology, and I can see Knowledge Based Applications adding
> > significant value to those traditionally developed systems.
> I can also
>
> > see some genuinely "the web as a database" type applications.
> > However, I think it is inappropriate to compare in this way
> > traditional systems (that are largely transaction processing
> > based) and Knowledge Based Systems. They are complementary not
> > competing technologies.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager Shell
> International
> > Petroleum Company Limited Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA,
> United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.shell.com
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) Chief Scientist Ontology
> Works, Inc. (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 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|