Re[2]: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)

John,
Let me add some more items to the things you like .
- To extend the Triples approach by the Classificaton Theory
integrated with Measurment Theory ;
- To use the Pragmatics above the Semantics ;
- To use the Pragmatism "relativity" between Ontology and
Epistemology(Cognitology);
- To add the VSM of Stafford Beer
(http://www.ototsky.mgn.ru/it/beer_vsm.html)
to Upper Ontology ;
- To add the "metasystm transition" as "natural generalization" way.
---------------------------
See some more details in - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it/21abreast.htm

Leonid

> Dan and Harry,

HH>>> Again, I'm not sure if a Semantic-Web interest list is the place
 >>> to be arguing against the Semantic Web per se, but John brings up
 >>> some interesting points.

DB>> It's a fine place, so long as the debate is reasoned and polite.

> Thanks for not being upset about my comments, but I'd like to
> emphasize that I'm definitely in favor of the Semantic Web, but
> I do have some serious concerns about some of the design choices.

> Let me point out some things I like:

>   1. The use of Unicode and URIs.

>   2. The use of XML for marking up documents.

>   3. The use of logic-based languages such as RDF and OWL, which are
>      semantically compatible with subsets of the draft proposed ISO
>      standard for Common Logic.

> Some things I'm not happy with:

>   1. The limitation of RDF to just triples.  There is no reason
>      why they can't support full n-ary relations.  That would
>      certainly simplify the mapping to and from relational DBs.

>   2. The bloated syntax of RDF & OWL. (Yes, I've heard all
>      the arguments for compression, for better human factored
>      tools, etc.   I've heard similar apologies for other design
>      mistakes over the past 40 years, and they've always turned
>      out to be wrong.)

> Suggestion:  I propose an alternate notation for RDF-like triples
> (with the option of n-tuples), which would be an XML tag that
> encloses a list of tuples defined by the following two BNF rules:

>      TupleList  ::=  Tuple*

>      Tuple  ::=  "(" Relation Argument* ")"

> The first rule says that a tuple list consists of zero or more tuples.
> The second rule says that a tuple has a left paren followed by a
> relation followed by zero or more arguments followed by a right paren.

> The syntax for the relation and arguments would be identical to the
> RDF syntax so that any list of RDF triples could be mapped into such
> a list.  It would also provide a convenient way of representing the
> data in a relational DB.  A relation with no arguments would represent
> a named assertion -- i.e., a proposition in propositional logic.

> This would just be an option.  If the RDF tools are sufficiently easy
> to use, nobody might ever feel the desire to use a tuple list.  But it
> would also provide a convenient method for representing data from RDBs
> and other similar systems.  It could also serve as a humanly-readable
> compression algorithm for RDF.  (And tuple lists could, of course,
> be compressed further, if desired.)

> John Sowa





-- 
С уважением,
 Leonid                          mailto:leo@mgn.ru

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 08:30:22 UTC