Kingsley and all, hello. On 2013 Jun 18, at 11:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> As already stated in an earlier post, I don't understand why "inference" and > "reasoning" are words that are no longer associated (instinctively) with RDF > as unique selling points. Being able to make increasingly precise sense of > data (based on its entity relationship based structure) is a major virtue! Because they're very poor selling points for most people. For SW people, and _some_ techies, reasoning is a plus; for most people, including most techies, it's just confusing technobabble. That part of the sales pitch might as well be in swahili -- you'd do as well trying to sell a family car based on the number of megaflops in the engine-management system; you're more likely to put people off rather than reel them in. However inference and ubiquity/interoperability are separate and independent selling points, and people _do_ get the latter. For me, the LD practice means I can frame a clear and consistent interoperability story for RDF (perhaps with some light inference as a neat trick), leaving the heavy reasoning -- which is valuable for the reasons you say -- to a later and separate SW pitch. All the best, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
