Re: Feedback

Hi Martynas, all,

Actual datasources of the implementation and input data formats shall be,
at least, all those you mentioned and many more (RDBMSs, EIS, etc.) tha may
be 'imported' and the purpose is to have a semantic general purpose
knowledge backend as the data/model tier in which to build logic and
specific purpose applications upon.

It's so 'low level' that I've found it difficult to explain. Although I
plan to offer 'high level' facades (Ports) for REST and other protocols,
the core concepts (metamodels) are simple in essence but I had a hard time
trying to communicate their meaning, if they do have one at all.

I know the document is a mess. Sorry. The idea behind this is to look
forward a collaborative effort to make it, readable first and then
implementable, if it's possible. Hope interested readers comment their
feedback in the document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-KziaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web

Regards,
Sebastián.

On Nov 21, 2016 9:17 PM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas@graphity.org>
wrote:

> Sebastian,
>
> please name actual datasources (Wikidata, UniProt, whatever),
> vocabularies/ontologies (schema.org, Data Cube, etc.), data formats
> (XML, CSV) that you want to use, and most importantly -- for what
> specific purpose?
>
> Right now your document is so abstract it is incomprehensible and not
> implementable.
>
> Martynas
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all, in response to Timothy's request I'll try to describe real world
> > problems / use cases I'm trying to solve: As the project I'd like to be
> > realized in this endeavor is a general purpose (knowledge enabled)
> database
> > back end with special features, use cases and problems may be the same of
> > the ones solved by traditional databases but with semantic back end and
> > special features provided benefits. So, it will not do much by itself
> but to
> > provide the means of higher application / presentation layers taking
> > advantage of such approaches.
> >
> > As the document I'm posting is kind of illegible stuff, I believe sharing
> > its link for comments will be of great help for me when dumping my
> thoughts
> > on the keyboard given useful advice is provided for making things
> clearer.
> > Here is the Google Docs link (anyone can comment):
> >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ
> 5T-KziaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web
> >
> > Please be patient. I have this bunch of ideas, all low level, protocol
> like
> > (nothing like an 'application'), for back end and infrastructure of
> concrete
> > semantic applications. Maybe not even a little part of all the document
> is
> > worth reading material or is not well written. What I'd like is finally
> get
> > to communicate my concepts to see if it is worth coding a 'proof of
> concept'
> > of this 'semantic services database'. The reason I'm so insistent in
> having
> > this feedback and potential consumers before I do some code is that I've
> > made so many attempts before by myself and I didn't get to nothing alone.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Sebastián.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2016 7:58 PM, "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Trying to follow your advice I've added a Scope section at the beginning
> >> of the document. The reason why I've found so difficult to describe this
> >> 'application' is that it is not an application but it is more like a
> kind of
> >> (knowledge) backend database where (augmented) RDF and metamodels are my
> >> 'relational' model. I don't know if exists some kind of 'relational
> algebra'
> >> for RDF so I started writing my own. Please tell me if I'm missing
> something
> >> important.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Sebastián.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 17, 2016 1:05 AM, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sebastian,
> >>
> >> Writing advice I got early on:
> >>
> >> - First write an abstract. If you can't summarize in a few sentences
> what
> >> you are doing, then it is going to be very hard for other to understand
> >> - From the abstract, the following should be apparent
> >> 1) What is the problem
> >> 2) Why is it important (i.e. motivation)
> >> 3) What is your contribution (what is unique/novel)
> >>
> >> Your introduction should dive into a bit more detail on this.
> >>
> >> You should be answer each of these questions in a succinct and crisp
> >> sentence.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
> >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> >> www.juansequeda.com
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all, its me again. I'm looking for feedback in this analysis phase
> of
> >>> a project I'd like to start building soon. The reason I post this draft
> >>> document again is that I've made some changes. I'd like to have some
> >>> orientation in the right directions I should take. I hope not to be
> boring
> >>> someone but 'cos what I'd like is to build kind of augmented
> ontologies and
> >>> metamodels, seems like no one is willing to share this approach with
> me.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if the document is a little rough written. I've wrote it all on a
> >>> phone...
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> Sebastián.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>