Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?

On 2/20/15 10:09 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
> So some thoughts here.
>
> OWL,  so far as inference is concerned,  is a failure and it is time 
> to move on.  It is like RDF/XML.

I think that's a little too generic a comment. Describing the nature of 
relations using relations is vital.

Not all of OWL is vital, at the onset. Basically, OWL doesn't need to be 
at the front-door per se., but understanding its role, in regards to 
relations semantics description and exploitation is important.

RDF/XML's problems have tarnished OWL, as it has the notion of a 
Semantic Web in general. For starters, too many OWL usage examples 
(circa., 2105) are *still* presented using  RDF/XML :(

The creation and management of RDF/XML is THE real problem. It messed up 
everything, and stayed at the fore front (as the sole official W3C RDF 
notation standard) for way too long. Exponential decadence++ par excellence!

>
> As a way of documenting types and properties it is tolerable.

Methinks, very useful.

> If I write down something in production rules I can generally explain 
> to an "average joe" what they mean.  If I try to use OWL it is easy 
> for a few things,  hard for a few things,  then there are a few things 
> Kendall Clark can do,  and then there is a lot you just can't do.
>
> On paper OWL has good scaling properties but in practice production 
> rules win because you can infer the things you care about and not have 
> to generate the large number of trivial or otherwise uninteresting 
> conclusions you get from OWL.

You need both, with rules being much clearer starting points for users 
and developers.

It's a journey back to Prolog [1] i.e., long awaited 5GL == Webby Prolog.


>
> As a data integration language OWL points in an interesting direction 
> but it is insufficient in a number of ways.  For instance,  it can't 
> convert data types (canonicalize <mailto:joe@example.com 
> <mailto:joe@example.com>> and "joe@example.com 
> <mailto:joe@example.com>"),  deal with trash dates (have you ever seen 
> an enterprise system that didn't have trash dates?) or convert units. 
> It also can't reject facts that don't matter and so far as both 
> time&space and accuracy you do much easier if you can cook things down 
> to the smallest correct database.

Task better handled via rules.

Links:


[1] http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/prolog1.htm -- A Prolog to Prolog by 
John F. Sowa  (Last Modified: 11/07/2001 14:13:17) .

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: 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
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this