W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Model Semantics, Representation Syntax, and Systems Integration

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:41:45 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinf3RViCn0kRa47dmuzMnFYGyBvO98-1KT-YgLy@mail.gmail.com>
To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM, mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> I assume we agree that mapping should be at the conceptual level while
>> interchange formats remain negotiable. In a sense, the pursuit of a
>> normative interchange format is inherently mercurial, but not so re.
>> conceptual schema :-)
> </snip>
>
> >From my POV, the principle of Hypermedia Factors[1] is one possible
> way to define a conceptual agreement that is not bound to a single
> media type or data format.
>
> [1] http://amundsen.com/hypermedia/hfactor/

Can you explain what you mean by "conceptual agreement" and how
hfactor can accomplish that? I didn't understand, from reading the
page, how it would help me in problems that I consider to require
conceptual agreement, for example communicating among research groups
mutant proteins that are hypothesized to be involved in causing
disease, and evidence for those hypotheses.

-Alan

>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> #RESTFest 2010
> http://rest-fest.googlecode.com
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/10 1:16 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>>
>> Alan / John: maybe we could use this thread to arrive at obvious common
>> ground re. data integration and the diminishing need for a syntax level
>> lingua franca.
>>
>> Kingsley includes me presumably because of a response to an earlier
>> message, not copied to this list.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Nov/0322.html
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> I think there *is* a need for a lingua franca for intercomputer
>> communication. But I support the idea that there should be alternative
>> syntaxes (as long as they can be clearly translated to the lingua
>> franca).
>>
>> I assume we agree that mapping should be at the conceptual level while
>> interchange formats remain negotiable. In a sense, the pursuit of a
>> normative interchange format is inherently mercurial, but not so re.
>> conceptual schema :-)
>>
>> Best,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President&  CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC