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

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

I don't care. I'm not discussing that.

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

I don't care. I'm not discussing that.

> 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?

I don't care. I'm not discussing that.

> 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.

I do care about this statement of yours. 
I don't see from you any evidence that the OWL alleged 'failure' is "due to syntax level issues".
I don't see why the alleged lack of appreciation of OWL by the masses is due to the fact that "RDF/XML has always obscured pathways to the triples" (whatever this means).
I do believe that the cause of the non widespread adoption of OWL is *not* because of the multiplicity of syntaxes.
The above statements remain just your unsubstantiated opinions of yours.

cheers
--e.

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:44:03 UTC