Re: What is Oracle's objection to the use of Turtle as R2RML syntax?

On 12/14/11 9:52 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2011, at 15:44, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 12/14/11 8:21 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>>>>>> As a precedence, we can look at the OWL spec. OWL too was called a language, "Web Ontology Language". But, it just defined a vocabulary. It did not define any syntax. One can use any RDF syntax (RDF/XML, N-Triple, ...) for OWL.
>>>>>> Yes, you could look at OWL as a DSL for expressing the semantic fidelity of relations via description logics. Now, if you look at OWL, as powerful and fundamentally useful as it actually is, what's happened to it over the last 12+ years? Nothing but confusion due to syntax level issues, all at the expense of its underlying syntax agnostic model.
>>>>> Do you you have any supporting evidence that this is "due to syntax level issues"?
>>>>> I really don't think so.
>>>> Yes. Look at DBpedia, Linked Open Data Cloud, SPARQL, and the rise of Linked Data in general. These are all examples of Turtle exploitation.
>>> I don't see how this supports your argument about OWL alleged 'failure' "due to syntax level issues".
>> OWL is not a failure, if you Google up you'll notice I've published a plethora of OWL utility demos. My point is this OWL has had a bad wrap due to folks not separating Syntax from Model.
>>
>> Back to LOD, DBpedia, and friends. If you notice, OWL hasn't been naturally pulled along with the Linked Data uptake wave. That's because RDF/XML obscured the pathway to comprehending its purpose. Manchester syntax hasn't gained traction. Turtle enables easy demonstration of OWL utility that understandable to a variety of audience profiles.
> I'm sorry if I insist here. Even if this is not crucial to the main discussion, I can't let this pass.
>
> "My point is this OWL has had a bad wrap due to folks not separating Syntax from Model"
> &
> "That's because RDF/XML obscured the pathway to comprehending its purpose"
>
> are unproven statements, but just your personal opinion.
> cheers
> --e.
>

Please don't let it pass.
Where is the evidence of mass OWL appreciation and uptake with regards 
to Linked Data, for instance.

Are you seriously trying to claim that OWL is appreciated and used en 
masse?

SPARQL, DBpedia, and the ever expanding LOD Cloud are live examples 
technology adoptions from the Semantic Web project. Where is OWL? Most 
ironic of all, data quality and integration dexterity are continuously 
seen as shortcoming of the aforementioned, the very thing OWL does very 
well. Why isn't that the norm today?

RDF/XML has always obscured pathways to the basic triple (3-tuple) and 
it doing so has inserted artificial inertia into this entire journey. We 
don't need to repeat these mistakes all over again.

OpenLink Software uses RDF/XML inside a lot of its Linked Data 
middleware products (but not at the front door). That doesn't mean we 
encourage its misuse re. specs like R2RML or even OWL.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen