Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML syntax?

On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:12, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> I do believe that the cause of the non widespread adoption of OWL is *not* because of the multiplicity of syntaxes.
> 
> Syntax multiplicity isn't the defining issue re. OWL. A specific syntax is, and that's RDF/XML. And if you are interested in history you'll notice RDF/XML has had the same effect on other aspects of the Semantic Web Project. Basically, every time its moved away from the "front door" appreciation, comprehension, and momentum follows.

mmhhhh. My first paper on description logics dates back in 1989. In 1992 I was part of the group which chose the standard syntax for DLs at the time (it was called KRSS); the same year I had the first serious system paper on DLs. I started working with Dieter and Ian in the late 90ies on defining the syntax of what at the time was still called OIL (later DAML+OIL, and then OWL); I stopped almost immediately horrified by this useless game to encode a logic in RDF -- a game that it is still going on...
So, I know history and I don't like RDF/XML either.
However, from my long standing experience, I am personally convinced that the issue of the syntax is playing the role of the scapegoat in hiding the real reasons for the alleged 'failure' of OWL or RDF itself. There is, in my opinion, the incompetence of (large part of) the theory people in looking at the real needs for applications (without trusting blindly to practitioners), the incompetence of (large part of) the practitioners in really understanding the added values of languages such as OWL or even RDF, the incompetence of  (large part of) the system people who are mainly interested in pushing their technology regardless of the theory or the real needs. Even with the best syntax in the world, you do not overcome these issues. Look at SQL and RDBs: horrible syntax (nobody can deny that), but it has conquered the world. Why? There is real beef beyond this technology, and theoreticians funded companies in the 80ies which did solve real problems.

>> The above statements remain just your unsubstantiated opinions of yours.
> 
> Same applies to you. We are both entitled to our subjective opinions :-)

My point exactly :-)
But please present your opinions as such, not as definitive statements.

On 14 Dec 2011, at 18:51, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

>> I do believe that the cause of the non widespread adoption of OWL is *not* because of the multiplicity of syntaxes.
> 
> The snytax-level issue with OWL is not the multiplicity of syntaxes. It's that the normative syntax, RDF/XML, obscures the structure of OWL and is universally detested.

See above :-)

cheers
--e.

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 23:04:46 UTC