Re: Semantic Layers (Was: Interpretation of RDF reification)

John--

In your recent message, you write:
> 
snip
> 
> We need multiple levels of languages:
> 
>  1. Languages that are designed for professional programmers and
>     system developers, who are willing and able to dig deep into
>     the inner workings of the computer system.
> 
>  2. Languages that are designed for specialists in some application
>     area, who are not computer professionals, but who are willing
>     and able to spend some time learning tools that they use in
>     their daily work.
> 
>  3. Languages and GUIs for people who use an application and have
>     no time or desire to learn anybody else's special conventions.
> 

You go on to say both:
> 
> I consider Common Logic, Prolog, Conceptual Graphs, Description Logics,
> and many other such things to belong to category #1.  

and

> 
> My complaint about RDF and OWL is that they are terrible languages
> for all three categories of humans -- #1, #2, and #3 -- and they
> are also horribly inefficient for computers.  They do not have
> a target audience.

Since OWL/DL is a description logic language, could you say (or point 
to) what your specific objections are to OWL/DL?

Also, regarding your problems with SQL (which I generally agree with), I 
believe you are referring specifically to writing queries.  However, in 
comparing anything to RDF (such as Common Logic or Prolog), it seems to 
me appropriate to restrict consideration to specifying relations and 
tuples (which is all RDF can really do).  Aren't Common Logic, Prolog, 
and SQL pretty much the same here?  And does your objection to RDF for 
this purpose primarily have to do with the restriction to binary 
relations, or are there other considerations you have in mind?

--Frank

Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 16:46:13 UTC