« Return to Thread: Putting Government Data online
Re: Putting Government Data online
by Frank Manola
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Azamat wrote:
> "Tim typically hid his talent under a bushel
> must read : http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/GovData.html"
>
> I much doubt that this note may have any big use. Recommend to learn
> more about the relationship of Data, Information, Knowledge and
> Wisdom. Good to start from the Ackoff's paper: "From data to
> wisdom." There is a rich literature on the data-information-
> knowledge-wisdom hierarchy (pyramid), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW
> . More advanced concepts are Linked Information and Linked Knowledge
> or the Wisdom Pyramid with meaningfully dynamic knowledge networks
> topology: full relationship as well as line, loop, bus, mesh, star,
> or tree.
>
> It is claimed that "Linked Data allows different things in different
> datasets of all kinds to be connected." http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/linked-open-data
> .
>
> As it is, , Linked Data looks a big mess-up of data, http://linkeddata.org/
> , with low quality content and lack of any knowledge structure or
> inference mechanism.
>
Yes, but it's on the Web, and linked! As opposed to lots of other
data (much of which also has low quality content and lack of any
knowledge structure or inference mechanism) that isn't. There's no
point in comparing the current state of linked data with some "data
Eden" that doesn't (and never did) exist. What progress is being made
toward the S*m*ntic W*b (the S*m*ntic W*b is the alternative to the
Semantic Web that avoids all the supposed errors of the Semantic Web)
using these other approaches?
>
>
> I share the concerns recently expressed by John Sowa on other forum:
He may have expressed these concerns recently on another forum, but
he's been expressing them for years.
>
> "My major complaint about the Semantic Web is that they ignored all
> the development techniques that worked successfully for years, and
> they failed to provide a migration path.
Worked successfully *for what*? No one is debating the success of
relational databases as database technology, but if there was a
migration path to the S*m*ntic W*b it was either not very clearly
marked, or those who believed in it weren't proceeding along it at any
substantial pace, or both.
>
> Following are some of the most egregious blunders:
>
> 1. Ignoring the fact that every major web site is built on top
> of a relational database. The major sites use big commercial
> databases. Smaller sites are based on LAMP -- Linux, Apache,
> MySQL, and Perl, Python, or PHP.
How does the Semantic Web ignore relational databases? Do you mean
people building triple stores? There's nothing built into the
Semantic Web that requires triple stores.
>
> 2. Building RDF on top of triples, instead of the SQL n-tuples.
Which enables people to grab groups of triples off the Web without
having to find schemas to figure out what the fields of the n-tuples
are. I call that an *advantage* on the Web, not an "egregious
blunder". Besides, triples just constitute a highly-normalized form
of relational database anyway (a number of relational database design
experts recommend a similar type of conceptual design), so the
foundation is pretty much the same. And if building the S*m*ntic W*b
directly on n-tuples is so much better, why don't more of the critics
get busy on it, instead of just carping about the work other people
are trying to do?
>
> 3. Failing to integrate their notations with UML diagrams, which
> include type hierarchies and various notations for constraints.
Work has been done on this, but do you seriously believe lack of UML
diagrams is a major issue? Relational databases certainly didn't rely
very much on UML diagrams for database design to become a mainstream
technology.
>
> If the Semantic Web had addressed these three issues from the
> beginning,
> it would have been integrated into the mainstream of data processing
> in
> about 3 or 4 years. Today, we would have seen some truly spectacular
> applications.
Baloney. What evidence exists that the problem is technology, as
opposed to cost, requirements, and politics (of putting data online)?
Integrating/rationalizing heterogeneous data is hard work, and always
has been (even when the data being integrated was *entirely* in
relational databases).
> The SemWeb still has a chance, but it has to be integrated with the
> mainstream of data processing before it can become the mainstream."
Certainly true. Let me offer a couple more truisms:
The Semantic Web still has a chance given the number of dedicated and
smart people working on it.
The S*m*ntic W*b has *no* chance as long as those who believe in it
don't develop their own specs and software that demonstrate all the
purported advantage of doing it that way (whatever it is).
--Frank
> "Tim typically hid his talent under a bushel
> must read : http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/GovData.html"
>
> I much doubt that this note may have any big use. Recommend to learn
> more about the relationship of Data, Information, Knowledge and
> Wisdom. Good to start from the Ackoff's paper: "From data to
> wisdom." There is a rich literature on the data-information-
> knowledge-wisdom hierarchy (pyramid), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW
> . More advanced concepts are Linked Information and Linked Knowledge
> or the Wisdom Pyramid with meaningfully dynamic knowledge networks
> topology: full relationship as well as line, loop, bus, mesh, star,
> or tree.
>
> It is claimed that "Linked Data allows different things in different
> datasets of all kinds to be connected." http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/ideas/linked-open-data
> .
>
> As it is, , Linked Data looks a big mess-up of data, http://linkeddata.org/
> , with low quality content and lack of any knowledge structure or
> inference mechanism.
>
Yes, but it's on the Web, and linked! As opposed to lots of other
data (much of which also has low quality content and lack of any
knowledge structure or inference mechanism) that isn't. There's no
point in comparing the current state of linked data with some "data
Eden" that doesn't (and never did) exist. What progress is being made
toward the S*m*ntic W*b (the S*m*ntic W*b is the alternative to the
Semantic Web that avoids all the supposed errors of the Semantic Web)
using these other approaches?
>
>
> I share the concerns recently expressed by John Sowa on other forum:
He may have expressed these concerns recently on another forum, but
he's been expressing them for years.
>
> "My major complaint about the Semantic Web is that they ignored all
> the development techniques that worked successfully for years, and
> they failed to provide a migration path.
Worked successfully *for what*? No one is debating the success of
relational databases as database technology, but if there was a
migration path to the S*m*ntic W*b it was either not very clearly
marked, or those who believed in it weren't proceeding along it at any
substantial pace, or both.
>
> Following are some of the most egregious blunders:
>
> 1. Ignoring the fact that every major web site is built on top
> of a relational database. The major sites use big commercial
> databases. Smaller sites are based on LAMP -- Linux, Apache,
> MySQL, and Perl, Python, or PHP.
How does the Semantic Web ignore relational databases? Do you mean
people building triple stores? There's nothing built into the
Semantic Web that requires triple stores.
>
> 2. Building RDF on top of triples, instead of the SQL n-tuples.
Which enables people to grab groups of triples off the Web without
having to find schemas to figure out what the fields of the n-tuples
are. I call that an *advantage* on the Web, not an "egregious
blunder". Besides, triples just constitute a highly-normalized form
of relational database anyway (a number of relational database design
experts recommend a similar type of conceptual design), so the
foundation is pretty much the same. And if building the S*m*ntic W*b
directly on n-tuples is so much better, why don't more of the critics
get busy on it, instead of just carping about the work other people
are trying to do?
>
> 3. Failing to integrate their notations with UML diagrams, which
> include type hierarchies and various notations for constraints.
Work has been done on this, but do you seriously believe lack of UML
diagrams is a major issue? Relational databases certainly didn't rely
very much on UML diagrams for database design to become a mainstream
technology.
>
> If the Semantic Web had addressed these three issues from the
> beginning,
> it would have been integrated into the mainstream of data processing
> in
> about 3 or 4 years. Today, we would have seen some truly spectacular
> applications.
Baloney. What evidence exists that the problem is technology, as
opposed to cost, requirements, and politics (of putting data online)?
Integrating/rationalizing heterogeneous data is hard work, and always
has been (even when the data being integrated was *entirely* in
relational databases).
> The SemWeb still has a chance, but it has to be integrated with the
> mainstream of data processing before it can become the mainstream."
Certainly true. Let me offer a couple more truisms:
The Semantic Web still has a chance given the number of dedicated and
smart people working on it.
The S*m*ntic W*b has *no* chance as long as those who believe in it
don't develop their own specs and software that demonstrate all the
purported advantage of doing it that way (whatever it is).
--Frank
« Return to Thread: Putting Government Data online
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
