Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> changing vendor rule languages from Michael Kifer on 2006-02-09 (public-rif-wg@w3.org from February 2006)

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:29:42 -0500
To: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060209192942.188E8CBED6@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>

> > In 1982, SQL market was infinitesimally small compared to other DB
> > products.  And those competitors were arguing that the needs of their
> > customers are perfectly met by hierarchical DB products. They also used
> > to claim that relational DBs will never fly because they are
> > unimplementable, non-scalable, cause leprosy and impotence. Are we
> > hearing the same arguments again? ;-)
> 
> If I recall, the commercial relational DB offerings were endorsed by the
> academic community. I don't remember the academic world trying to
> compete with Oracle and Ingres. :-)


Exactly. Companies like Ontoprise, XSB Inc, OntologyWorks, etc., use
fairly recent technologies that are endorsed by the academia. Academic
world doesn't try to compete with them in the commercial world. The
situation is exactly parallel to what was back then in 1980-2.
Except that the academic world is much more aware of the need for
technology transfer and is weary of the Frankensteins that may appear the
moment they drop vigilance (eg: the current SQL).


	--michael

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 19:29:53 UTC