Igor, Mike, Bill, List,
As Yogi Berrra said, these discussions are "Deja vu all over again."
Re "No SQL": The person who coined that term, rewrote it as Not Only SQL The original SQL was designed for data that is best organized in a table. The fact that other data might be better represented in other formats does not invalidate the use of tables for data that is naturally tabular.
Re tree structure in ontologies: A tree structure for the NAMES of an ontology does NOT imply that the named data happens to be a tree. Some of the data might be organized in a tree, but other data might be better organized in a table, list, vector, matrix, tensor, graph, multidimensional shapes, or combinations of all of them.
The following survey article was written about 40 years of developments from 1970 to 2010. Some new methods have been invented since then, but 90% of the discussions are about new names for old ideas re-invented by people who didn't know the history. I wrote the survey, but 95% of the links are to writings by other people;
https://jfsowa.com/ikl .
And by the way, I agree with Bill Burkett (on the list down below). He is one of the people I collaborated with on various committees in the past many years. We viewed the Deja Vu over and over and over. That's one reason why I don't get excited by new names.
John
From: "Igor Toujilov' via ontolog-forum" <ontolog-forum@googlegroups.com>
Mike,
I would not say "Ontologies are represented in graph structures" only.
Ontologies can be represented in a wide range of formalisms, including
graphs, which are just one possible representation. For example, there
are tools to store the same ontology in different representation
formats: RDF/XML, Turtle, OWL Functional Syntax, Manchester OWL
Syntax, etc. Yes, RDF and Turtle are graph representations. But OWL
Functional and Manchester syntaxes have nothing to do with graphs. And
yet they represent the same ontology.
I also disagree that "the workforce needs conventional everyday
interfaces driven by relational databases". It depends on your system
architecture. Today many systems use No-SQL or graph databases
successfully without any need for relational databases.
In real systems, the difference between data models and ontologies can
be sharp or subtle. Some systems continue using relational databases
while performing some tasks on ontologies. Other systems have
ontologies that are tightly integrated in the production process, so
sometimes it is hard to separate the ontologies from data. And of
course, there is a wide range of systems in between of those extreme
cases.
Igor
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 at 19:14, Mike Peters <mike@redworks.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi David
>
> Great question.
>
> Ontologies are represented in graph structures. Non-relational databases like semantic or graph databases are better suited for this job, and ontologists (I'm not one) have no problem working with them.
>
> However, the workforce needs conventional everyday interfaces driven by relational databases. So, there is an import/export issue that David Hay could have written a book about, and I wish he had. His explanations are excellent. His book on UML and data modelling also bridged two different ways of looking at the world.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Tuesday, 31 December 2024 at 07:32:15 UTC+13 deddy wrote:
>>
>> Mike -
>>
>> >
>> > pity he never wrote a book on data modelling ontologies.
>> >
>>
>> The distinction / difference between data models & ontologies is what...?
>>
>> ______________________
>> David Eddy
>>
>>
>> > -------Original Message-------
>> > From: Mike Peters <mi...@redworks.co.nz>
>> > To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [External] Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Design Pattern Ontology
>> > Sent: Dec 30 '24 13:19
>> >
>> > Hi Bill
>> >
>> > I agree; those are excellent books. Their work or influence is the
>> > basis for every relational database I have built.
>> >
>> > David Hay also wrote this one:
>> >
>> > Hay, D. C. (2011). UML and Data Modeling: A Reconciliation, Technics
>> > Publications.
>> >
>> > I found it very helpful. It's a pity he never wrote a book on data
>> > modelling ontologies.
>> >
>> > Mike Peters
>> > -----------------------------------
>> > Ajabbi
>> >
>> > PO Box 902
>> > Invercargill 9840
>> > New Zealand
>> >
>> > M 64+ 22 600 5006
>> >
>> > Skype redworksnz
>> > Email mi...@redworks.co.nz
>> > Facebook www.facebook.com/NZMikePeters
>> >
>> > Home www.mtchocolate.com
>> >
>> > Art Studio www.redworks.co.nz
>> > Software Architecture www.blog.ajabbi.com
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 at 06:14, 'Burkett, William [USA]' via
>> > ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In the "data modelling world" (which, to me, is not different than
>> > > the "ontology world"), there are books by David Hay and Len
>> > > Silverston that are overtly focuses on design patterns:
>> > >
>> > > Hay, D. C. (1996). Data model patterns : conventions of thought. New
>> > > York, Dorset House Pub.
>> > >
>> > > Hay, D. C. (2006). Data model patterns : a metadata map. Amsterdam ;
>> > > Boston, Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann.
>> > >
>> > > Silverston, L. (2009). The data model resource book, Vols 1-3. New
>> > > York, John Wiley.
>> > >
>> > > These books provide a catalog of reusable and adaptable patterns for
>> > > all kinds of concepts that recur in most data models/ontologies.
>> > >
>> > > Bill Burkett