Saturday, January 28, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
possibility of complexity arising in grid computing
[368] ß [comment on four issues
(Richard Ballard)
[367] ß [Four Issues facing
Ontological Modeling (Paul Werbos)
[150] ß [Deeper discussion between Judith Rosen and Peter Krieg on relationalism
Communication
to part of the SOA Blueprint Technical Committee (at OASIS) à [144],
Communication from John Sowa
Footnotes by Paul Prueitt
I would just like to comment on a couple of points:
1. RDF is a low-level representation for binary relations.
2. SQL tables are a low-level representation for relations with any number of arguments.
Both of these methods (tables and nets) have been implemented in computer systems of various kinds since the 1950s. Both of them have advantages and disadvantages, and information from one of them can be converted to the other. [1]
SQL is a mature technology that has been used for about 30 years, and it supports the world economy with efficient, thoroughly tested technology. [2]
RDF is a new technology, whose potential is still being explored. [3] One unfortunate feature of RDF is its extreme verbosity, which has led to highly inefficient methods for storage, transmission, and processing. Perhaps someday these limitations will be overcome in future implementations, but there is still a long way to go. [4]
> But RDF is kept simple. Its first goal is to annotate > resources on the web. Not to build a "centralized" > knowledge base...
That is an important point. RDF is useful for annotations, but for heavy-duty processing, the RDF representations are converted to other forms that support more efficient processing.
> It may be not the best for all representation styles... > but there are tradeoffs.
I agree. What bothers me is the hype that says everything has to be converted into RDF or OWL or SWRL before it can be used on the web.
I would like to point out that without any support from the W3C, the PHP language has become one of the most widely used tools for processing web pages. It made the transition from tiny prototype to one of the most widely used tools in a fraction of the time taken for anything proposed for the Semantic Web.
Nobody really knows what new technology will develop, but backing by official committees does not guarantee success. [5]
John Sowa
[1] Prueitt: conjecture: A
specific set of n-ary relationship can be re-expressed as a relational database, with
inefficiencies, but no general methodology exists that will autonomously convert any arbitrary set of
n-ary to a third normal form (Codd) relational database.
[2] Prueitt: This is where I
get very displeased with John Sowa’s position in government sponsored working
groups (like ONTAC). The fact is that
the world does not have a high quality information theory and as a consequence
huge losses in life and property occur, (or are not prevented). The BCNGroup’s proposed (since 1993)
Manhattan type project to establish the Knowledge Sciences would cut direct
government funding of computer science by 50% (to only .6 B per year) and
reprogram this other .6 B per year to establishing knowledge science, AS A
NATURAL SCIENCE. This NATURAL science
would not be based on the polemics developed by the AI and knowledge
engineering vested interests. Sowa’s
work on cognitive graphs would have a small place in the curriculum. But, and I think he sees this, the work on
interfaces between computer languages and human language is at a dead end. The principles needed to move the path must
come from natural science, and the computer scientists will have none of
that.
[3] Prueitt: As so,,,, it has
to be the only thing explored? Why can
we as a community of scholars step in and give deeply grounded advise on how to
leave the RDF paradigm and move to (well the language has degeneracy (multiple
meanings).. so I will leave this blank.)
[4] Prueitt: Why John?
Why must you insist on pretending as if it is ok that continue a funding
path where with each step the over growth crowds our progress more? You rightly criticize RDF and AI, and then
act as if “oh, if only we let this same group with this same viewpoint have
more funding and an additional one or two decades; …. “ I do not understand what you think you are
doing.
[5] It would help if the intellectual leaders (you being one of them) would get off the fence.