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

Re: Model Semantics, Representation Syntax, and Systems Integration

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:20:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4CDB0CB4.5080504@openlinksw.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11/10/10 3:36 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, 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 :-)
> I'm not sure what you are referring to as conceptual schema. If we
> consider it a combination of logic and ontology, then only the logic
> part is not (too) "mercurial". The ontology part certainly is.

Logic standing on it own as in FOL (the ultimate baseline).

> Again, I don't agree that interchange formats are "negotiable". They
> need to be standardized, and they need to be adopted, lest there be
> (very uninteresting, but very real) obstructions to interchange.

This is were we differ.

I think we can have exemplars e.g. RDFa, RDF/XML etc.. But global 
adoption will always be mercurial. Thus, middleware will always have a 
vital role.

Middleware will basically play the babelfish role.

As you know, this is exactly what the Virtuoso Sponger has always been 
about. That's why we nested it deeply in the Virtuoso SPARQL engine etc..

> So, bottom line, I think the interesting and unsolved areas that we
> need to work on are the ontologies,  their development, use, and
> adoption, and the discussion of format versus logic distracts from
> that.

Not when Syntax and Conceptual Schema are conflated (not by you, but by 
many others).

> The format issue is mostly a solved problem, IMO. Yes angle
> brackets are ugly, but what really matters is that a decision was
> made.

Solved, but via middleware. Thus, middleware (wrapper) developers need 
to grok the opportunity at hand. Outside middleware realm, developer are 
ultimately aligned to syntax.

Kingsley
> -Alan
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

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 21:21:21 UTC

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