Adrian,
*Is it a possible scenario to think a Semantic Web environment controlled
only by rules?*
Yes. Executable English is rules-only on the surface. Internally, it
automatically generates and runs networked SQL.
Here's an example:
www.executable-english.com/Oil_Industry_Supply_Chain_by_Kowalski_and_Walker.pdf
I think, your 'Executable English' devolopement idea doesn't involve a
'Semantic Web environment', but ofcourse with rules it can support running
'a networked SQL'.
In
www.executable-english.com/Oil_Industry_Supply_Chain_by_Kowalski_and_Walker.pdf
i cannot see, when it was published??? This a bit important for investing
time reading it. I see in this document again the link
http://www.executable-english.com
I think, its mean content is not yet in a state of publishing for the
world as i already wrote in my previous posting. There is really a lot of
work todo making your idea transparent for a normal user as i, would i
say...
baran
************
Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
San Jose, CA, USA
860 830 2085
www.executable-english.com
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM, <baran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I still need some explanation. What is the advantage of using ontology
in
our semantic web application. Its just that we can share it?
Second, what is the advantage of Jena rules? A task completed with an
RDF
API and same task with Jena rules, why people prefer rules?
i think, kumar's both questions together make sense. Ontologies + Rules
make the whole thing really very complex.
My question: Is it a possible scenario to think a Semantic Web
environment
controlled only by rules?
thanks, baran
**************
Thanks.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:28 AM, <baran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Adrian, i think this is a rather old and not yet fully developed
application with a UI needing a bit freshing up for smoothly working,
databases are (I tried with commodities1/2) also old and rather
small. Is
gold no commodity? if i put a question with an agent the effect is
only
reordering the list of general questions. My suggestion is: Let at
first
as
input for an agent not only questions but also the option of a single
item
and then give a list of possible questions the agent can answer
exactly
for
this item. May be i couldn't get everything so how it is meant...
But the idea as whole has some original aspects, that was really what
i
meant: Trying away from heavy classical view of SPARQL databases
connected
to certain ontologies with a lot of small surprising error effects in
developement, so that people ask: Why dont you make a simple SQL
database,
you talk then about Semantic Web, Linked Data basing on triples and
URI's
and of course about public endpoints. Then comes the question:
'public'
endpoints with this performance where SPARQL only an adapted SQL for
triples is? etc...
I think you could next fresh up your concept if you have time for it,
the
other question is how it would react under heavy usage... This is my
comment after 20 minutes, sorry that i had not much more time...
**********
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:05:54 +0100, Adrian Walker <
adriandwal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Baran,
You wrote:
*This means downsizing the whole thing to a simplified kernel for a
special
application field.*
Here's a simplified kernel that arguably covers wider version of
application semantics than the usual "semantic web" tools.
Here's a summary slide:
www.executable-english.com/internet_business_logic_in_a_nuts
hell.pdf
The system that supports this is live, online at
www.executable-english.com.
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements. Nothing to
download,
just point a browser to the site.
Thanks for comments, -- Adrian
Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
San Jose, CA, USA
860 830 2085
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 4:33 AM, <baran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:02:46 +0100, David Jordan <
jdavidjorda...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree that have some discussion about this is very useful. Many
of us
have tried to evangelize semantic web technologies in our
organizations
and > have struggled and failed because we cannot provide
sufficient
justification for using the technology. Hearing the specific value
provided that can convince the skeptics is extremely valuable, much
more
valuable
than simple support questions about a particular API interface.
yes, i thing similar things, also like others responding to this
thread
in
an open minded way...
But i also want to describe something for the future:
I imagine, a cheekily developer constructs a small, easily
understandable
and effectively implementable 'subset' of the whole thing 'Semantic
Web'
defining a new playing field or making great progress in usual apps
of
today.
This cold be the realisation of TBL cit. (about 20 years ago?): 'The
most
exciting things about Semantic Web is not what we can imagine to do
with
it, but we can't yet imagine it will do.'
First step is always a very simple and comprehensible idea.. This
means
downsizing the whole thing to a simplified kernel for a special
application
field... Better late than never...
This is really what i instinctively think about this stuff after so
many
years. I know, such things are totally off topic for Jena team, but
my
posting is for 2 or 3 users who can be interested, if it is
allowed...
thanks, baran.
************
On 10/02/17 12:22, kumar rohit wrote:
Hi, what are the benefits of semantic web technologies? I have used
semantic web technologies from one year but, in theory I am not
sure
the
real advantages of semantic web.
When we develop a system using traditional RDBMS and Java and
same
system
we develop using Java/Jena Protege SPARQL etc, so what is the
advantage
of
the latter application?
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
