W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: OWL Full proposal (sort of) - addressing my Action

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:33:19 -0500
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E79C5524-2209-47D1-B75D-92617DD7AE5D@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

The blog at [1], whether we agree with it or not, is why I say we run  
the risk of missing Web App developers if we (i) don't provide a  
fragment like OWL Prime, and don't pay attention to the "full" world  
-- this is clearly someone who gets part of the Sem Web picture and  
wants things to go that way - The author (who has some credibility in  
development space as you can see if you read his bio) is saying the  
RDBMSs don't have what future Web apps need, and that graph based  
stuff seems to be the right direction, but he says:

> Unfortunately, the semantic web is proof that while a little geek is  
> good, but too much geek is, well, too much geek. The problem is that  
> the people that created the semantic web were just way too smart. In  
> fact if you read even the watered down Wikipedia description of the  
> semantic web, it sounds like useless abstract gobbledygook. As a  
> result, the semantic web is too great a leap from the tried and true  
> relational database. In fact, it doesn't even feel like relational  
> database users were a target audience for the semantic web  
> architects. But whether they were aggressively targeting mainstream  
> database developers or not, the gap between the two methodologies is  
> far too great not only because the semantic web is hard, but because  
> relational tools are being greatly simplified, which just increases  
> the gap.

when I talk abut onramps, easier ways to get started, and semantics  
compatible with Web Developer needs, this is what I had in mind --  
this just says it much better than I did...

[1] http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/02/death-of-relational-database.html
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2008 17:33:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC