Re: Semantic Web culture vs Startup culture

laff out loud, indeed  All SPARQL (and the Open World Assumption) ever needed to play nice with the Central Limit Theorem is to stuff all the red herrings into Planck Scale boxes and pack them at the bottom of the <rdf:List> container.

I just invented a 4th Law of Thermodynamics - Conservation of Cat Video's.  I'm goin' to Hell for that.
Whatever.  It is impossible to re-invent a wheel which takes more than half the implementation time of the original invention ... If it does your watch is broken.

"You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."  John von Neumann to Claude Shannon

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
Also John von Neumann (apparently he was talking to himself. People were listening, but nobody was hearing.)

--Gannon
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 3/31/14, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Semantic Web culture vs Startup culture
 To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
 Cc: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
 Date: Monday, March 31, 2014, 12:48 PM
 
  What makes me laff is that the same
 people who think "RDF sucks"
 think Neo4J is the bee's knees.  (Even if they've never
 quite shipped
 an actual product with it,  or if they did a demo it
 performs worse
 than the same demo I did with MySQL in 2002)
 
 Somehow,  SPARQL has never been seen as a "NoSQL" and I
 don't know why.
 
 
 On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 > I agree, Kingsley.
 >
 > Problems with SKOS (Lists) and RDF (Lists) are
 implementation problems, not processing problems.  It
 is very difficult to prevent people from perceiving a
 <first>, <rest>, <nil> sequence as a Monte
 Carlo integration of probability.  From a young age we
 see that, if it is summer, winter is half a year forward or
 back and vice-versa.  What good is SKOS or RDF if the
 graphs do not show/(provide a visualization of) that
 seasonal straight line depreciation accounting ?
 >
 > Dilemma Answer: make up a virtuous bookkeeper's scale
 and divide it by 4 (always possible) and call it a Quarterly
 Conference Calls and the last one an Annual Report. Profits
 ? Sorry, "absolutely" no telling when
 gravity=(1/1)=(2pi/2pi)=(360 Degrees/360
 Degrees)=(Thing/sameAs), etc.). A bookkeeper is always
 virtuous, maybe because they are exactly congruent to virtue
 and maybe because they fear what a psychopathic authority
 might do to them if they fail to tell them the truth scaled
 to what they want to hear.  That is not a probability
 either, it protects accomplices and keeps you and your
 friends safe. <foaf:Person> does not always make that
 my team-other team relation "all present and accounted
 for".
 >
 > http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/eCommerceVision.jpg
 > http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/CulturalHeritageVision.jpg
 >
 > Superstitious, bigoted Scientists are virtuous
 bookkeepers who often have to decide if icebergs float
 because they are Witches or float because they are
 Queer.  You can't resolve that culture war by calling
 Alan Turing dirty names, and Implementers simply can not
 assume that an audience who knows what recursion is also
 knows what recursion does.  That is a semantic
 mistake.
 > --Gannon
 >
 > --------------------------------------------
 > On Sun, 3/30/14, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
 wrote:
 >
 >  Subject: Re: Semantic Web culture vs Startup
 culture
 >  To: public-lod@w3.org
 >  Date: Sunday, March 30, 2014, 1:00 PM
 >
 >  On 3/29/14 1:41 PM, Luca Matteis
 >  wrote:
 >  > Started a sort of Semantic Web vs Startup
 culture war
 >  on Hacker News:
 >  > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7491925
 >  >
 >  > Maybe you all can help me with some of the
 comments
 >  ;-)
 >  >
 >  >
 >  My comments, posted to the list:
 >
 >  RDF is unpopular because it is generally
 misunderstood. This
 >  problem arises (primarily) from how RDF has been
 presented
 >  to the market in general.
 >  To understand RDF you have first understand what
 Data
 >  actually is [1], once you cross that hurdle two
 things [2[3]
 >  ]will become obvious:
 >
 >  1. RDF is extremely useful in regards to all
 issues relating
 >  to Data
 >  2. RDF has been poorly promoted.
 >
 >  Links:
 >  [1] http://slidesha.re/1epEyZ1 --
 Understanding Data
 >  [2] http://bit.ly/1fluti1 -- What is RDF, Really?
 >  [3] http://bit.ly/1cqm7Hs -- RDF Relation (RDF should
 >  really stand for: Relations Description
 Framework) .
 >
 >  --
 >  Regards,
 >
 >  Kingsley Idehen
 >  Founder & CEO
 >  OpenLink Software
 >  Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
 >  Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
 >  Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
 >  Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
 >  LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 
 
 
 -- 
 Paul Houle
 Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF
 (607) 539 6254    paul.houle on
 Skype   ontology2@gmail.com

Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 18:30:28 UTC