| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Jean-Luc Delatre wrote:
>
> Just a minor remark.
>
> "John F. Sowa" a écrit :
>
> > 1. The database itself is a large collection of
> ground-level clauses,
> > which use the existential-conjunctive subset of logic (the only
> > operators are existence and conjunction).
>
> THIS is the problem, the bulk of the database is only *ground-level*,
> and even if stored queries and views are FOL and horn clauses
> the whole
> of the database is not homogenous and self-referencable.
> For instance you cannot have queries about the stored queries
> that would
> have such or such characteristics.
One single good example of "such and such characteristics"
would be useful to enlighten this discussion much further.
Software analysis tools already represent the internals of
programs for useful purposes such as optimization, type
consistency checking, identifying unreachable expressions
and unimplemented conditions. But why anyone would want to
write queries about queries in applications is beyond reality.
> Fairly common shortsightedness from the designers who are
> bent on solving
> the "practical problems of the day" while dismissing
> generality as "too complex".
Nobody I know thinks generality is more complex than
specificity. Its just different. Application esigners get
paid to solve immediate problems. Database product companies
get ROI by building RDBMSs to solve those problems, not to
play in their sandboxes.
The value of ontologies will be the leverage they give the
application designers to improve their productive efforts.
Rich