Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RDF for unstructured databases,RDF for axiomatic systems ?(was Re: [xml-
 11/14/2002 4:20:30 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote: > >I should say that the project is proving a resounding success within Sun. So >much for the idea that RDF is some academic oddity. I think I am beginning to grok the RDF world a little better. Perhaps the problem (at least the motivation for the assertions/questions that triggered Uche's scorn) was that I had seen RDF through the lens provided by the rdf-logic effort and the Semantic Web vision, that is, as a way to define axiomatic systems on which machines will make interesting logical inferences about resources on the web. For example, in the TimBL et al Sci Am article: "Adding logic to the Web?the means to use rules to make inferences, choose courses of action and answer questions?is the task before the Semantic Web community at the moment. A mixture of mathematical and engineering decisions complicate this task. The logic must be powerful enough to describe complex properties of objects but not so powerful that agents can be tricked by being asked to consider a paradox... An important facet of agents' functioning will be the exchange of "proofs" written in [RDF]". That strikes me as highly unlikely to evolve, because a) it's DAMNABLY hard to build consistent and powerful axiomatic systems, especially about human affairs; b) logical inferences are extremely fragile in the face of ambiguity and inconsistency, and the "solution" seems to presume profound breathroughs in logic and/or computer science, and c) the "metacrap" issues: it's very clear that people (stupid, lazy, greedy, un-knowing of ourselves that we are) will not take the trouble to provide good and honest metadata for their content unless The Boss is watching closely. Not to mention the fact that few (e.g. the RSS users) want to pay the RDF tax, given its XML serialization that seems to have no friends at all except the RDF working group charter :-) BUT perhaps I have been oblivious to the REAL users of RDF (and other semantic mapping technologies) who seem to use rough 'n ready ontologies (e.g. "<street>, <rue>, and <strasse> can be considered synonymous in an <address> context"), and those who use it as sortof an unstructured database for knowledge management applications. If one thinks of RDF queries as following chains of "reasoning" that can ignore inconsistencies (I think Uche mentioned the heuristic of using the first assertion) rather than as rigorous proofs in a logico-deductive system, exploiting RDF's recursive subject-verb-object structure common to most [all?] natural languages, then maybe some interesting things can happen. I'm still unpersuaded that very many HAVE happened. We can all "refute" the claim that our favorite technology is an "academic oddity" by reference to a handful of proofs-of-concepts along with the assertion that this is the tip of the iceberg or the start of something big. (My favorite "academic oddity" Next Big Thing candidate at the moment is Linda / tuple spaces / XML spaces ... it would be an interesting exercise to see if I could come up with as many success stories for this as an RDF stakeholder could for RDF ... <grin> ). Still, I wouldn't bet against a simplified RDF syntax (XML or otherwise) latching onto the "unstructured database" meme and growing into something Really Big. That will end up looking about as much like the Semantic Web vision as the HTTP/HTML web looks like Ted Nelson's vision ... But what the hell, nobody ever said that evolution favors the the most beautiful, only that it favors practical solutions to real problems. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
