[iDC] please make comments regarding semantic overlay term

[Paul Prueitt]

What stops the exploration of topic maps in the US markets is the  
stranglehold that RDF has.   One may choose to ignore the mind set  
that AI and RDF have created over funding.  (www.secondschool.net)

Yes there is some value in RDF, I celebrate this also.   The point is  
that there is no free market here, there is gaming and fraud.  So RDF  
and topic maps do not compete on merits - unless the merits are  
defined as profits to the incumbent IT powers.

Eventually, like alternating current overcoming the demonization and  
distortions by Edison and friends, topic maps will be seen to be  
interpretable in real time by humans and yet process-able by  
computing environments.  RDF is not interpretable by normal folks in  
everyday situations.  The use of RDF requires a clergy.  (Oh my, how  
nice!  Profits and control.  )

The cute arguments by the RDF crowd about the

> all intents and purposes topic maps can
> be expressed in RDF


was a polemic strong enough to inhibit topic map as an alternative.   
Yea for the incumbents!

Natural language use does not force a logic on us, in the same way as  
OWL does.  Topic maps are entailed when interpreted by humans, much  
like a book.  Logic is a religion.  It does have usefulness, but if  
there is no soul to the religion; it is only one more form of control  
over the masses.

You say:

> While the Semantic Web
> languages are crude in expressive ability compared to human language,
> they are considerably more tractable.

and I say " in what way "tractable".  The end goal here is not to  
turn over the world to a logic machine, but to empower people to  
communicate in new ways in real time about things that are happening.

Unless there is some other kind of comment, I see no reason to  
continue this well know exposition... we have all seen this before.






On Mar 17, 2008, at 5:30 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 17/03/2008, Paul Prueitt <psp at ontologystream.com> wrote:
>> The "maths" behind OIL are not mature, but are getting close, and yes
>>  those system can be useful.
>>
>>  The barrier that is not understood is still there.
>>
>>  The statement should be:
>>
>>  There is an alternative to OWL, topics maps being one example of an
>>  alternative, that is not explored
>
> Ok, RDF now has greater mind share, but there's nothing stopping
> people exploring topic maps further. (OWL is based on the Description
> Logics formalism, as far as I'm aware TMs don't have such a
> foundation).
>
> It's worth noting that there's significant overlap between topic maps
> and RDF, to the extent that to all intents and purposes topic maps can
> be expressed in RDF.
>
> See:
> A Survey of RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability Proposals
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdftm-survey/
>
> Living with topic maps and RDF
> http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html
>
>> because of the fixation by people
>>  who somehow have been nominated as the authority.
>
> ...and perhaps because it works?
>
>>  We all lose because of the non-exploration of topic maps, and of
>>  other and even better alternatives such as n-ary patterns.
>
> Better in what respect? For what purpose?
>
> The binary relations of RDF are a very good fit with the links of the
> Web, and n-ary relations can be expressed in RDF (though they do get
> tricky at times), see:
>
> Evolving the Link (one of mine, I'm afraid)
> http://dsonline.computer.org/portal/pages/dsonline/2007/06/w3web.html
>
> Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web: Use With Individuals
> http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations
>
>>  The paradigm shift is held back because of the over investment in
>>  something that objectively should not work to the extend that we  
>> need
>>  for collective knowledge sharing.
>
> As far as I can see, the Web has proven itself very effective for
> collective knowledge sharing, even though machine processing of
> human-readable text is severely limited. While the Semantic Web
> languages are crude in expressive ability compared to human language,
> they are considerably more tractable. Having a more computer-friendly
> approach to information representation on the Web would seem to me a
> step forward.
>
> I really don't see any systematic hold-back of collective knowledge
> sharing. Ok, there have no doubt been many technical errors in detail
> (arguably RDF/XML syntax being the biggest). Education and outreach
> hasn't been handled very well, though I think things have improved
> considerably in the last year or two.
>
>>  Perhaps you will agree..?
>
> Semantic Web technologies may be far from ideal, but they do appear to
> be the best bet right now. They do enable improved knowledge sharing
> over what we've currently got, and are finding deployment *now*. They
> should help provide technologies more to your liking in whatever phase
> follows :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> -- 
> http://dannyayers.com
> ~
> http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/