'rpm -i' followed by library conflicts, followed by manual rebuilding, followed by hacking in unintelligible configuration files, followed by kernel recompilation, followed by pulling out your hair and realising you spend all your time on unproductive rubbish on the Linux box and all your useful (and pleasurable) time on the Windows box... or is it just me?
If you move from a toy to its real counterpart, though, you expect it to have at least the same capabilities.
If you play with a toy fire engine and someone tries to persuade you of the benefits of a 'fire engine' without a siren, hose or ladder, you're hopefully in a place to tell them that that's not the tool for the job.
I appreciate and support OSS, but I hope my students would not pick MySQL over Oracle without a lot of thought (and about more issues than licensing cost and politics)...
Answering my own question (since no one else seems to have bothered about this issue all day), IBM claim Cloudscape does have all these SQL92 features and many SQL99 ones to boot.
If it's efficient and stable I'll definitely be pushing students this way rather than letting them use MySQL (with which I've been massively disappointed, having been a 'real' - i.e. pre-Web - database apps developer)...
Citeseer only sees about 70% (iirc) of the papers in Computer Science, and basically none outside... and its attempts at BibTeX are usually rubbish... and it's up and down like a tart's... (well, until the mirrors are properly sorted and stable).
More interesting to some of us - how does it compare with MySQL in the areas that's not ready for... like providing for the use of some of the more interesting stuff in the SQL standards (subqueries, views etc.)?
(No, I'm not going to say triggers and stored procedures - I think there was just a story about this... and, btw, apologies if I'm behind on what MySQL does and doesn't implement since last year...)
I'm also quite aware of previous use of this word and not its biggest fan (there again, the same might be said about a word like 'monad'). Still, ontologies in, say, OWL (building on RDF) are lexica (as well as taxonomies and bases for reasoning also over logical axioms) and so I stand by what I say: what you're 'suggesting' is already accommodated in this world...
Other ways that RDF is represented - the means of the 3store is one (albeit storage and manipulation, not communication).
Structurally (and technically), btw, RDF is a labelled multigraph (i.e. multiple edges between given nodes) and XML a rooted tree with a single descent (ok, plus possible inter-node references defined in XSDL), so they're actually quite different mindsets when used to their respective natural expressiveness.
Second problem with RDF is that it is really hard for a grad student to write an operational or denotational semantics for a programming language, a field that has only been worked on solidly for thrity years or so. So now we are expected to be defining semantics for everything???
Defining a complete operational semantics for a formal language can be difficult (and denotational even moreso - yes, I'm a theoretical computer scientist), but formalising a fragment of the static relationships between concepts is far less so (and happening).
The way that semantics get attached to syntax is through use. Use in this case means a program. I don't know that there is any RDF application out there that is likely to go much of anywhere soon.
There's a lot of FOAF out there and quite a few good applications over it with useful functionality...
I think that the way to get to a semantic web is completely different. You start from XML documents rather than attempt to change what the world chose for syntax. You build simple operational vocabularies of common terms for use in catalogues and make it really easy for people to categorize their work within those catalogues. You take as your starting premise that any structure of knowledge is going to be a work in progress.
Ontologies, you mean - I think you'll find that this is part of the effort. Other than that, in disagreeing with RDF and proposing XML, all you're really saying is that we should use tree-structured data, rather than multigraphs, for the representation - one might just as well represent the RDF in XML... which is the standard approach already!
The system is wrong, but if you don't like it, maybe moving to Sweden is not such a bad idea?
Yes, I have to say (and I'm serious) that moving to Europe would leave one (as an American) treated better as a PhD candidate and with a much wider perspective, changing ones priorities drastically on socio-economic considerations...
I've only heard this from people who didn't even try... (Me, I'm writing up, chose the direction of my own research and I've been the primary author on all my papers to date.)
Probably same thing as when a commercial vendor has to amend their library; you either stick with what you had (if the change is non-critical), revalidate or ignore the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Google certainly edged their way into this years-established trend weeks before Microsoft!
One might say the same about Google's Blogger...
More interested - that's the point: perhaps you'd be happy with a seemingly powerful pump, but no hose... I wouldn't!
'rpm -i' followed by library conflicts, followed by manual rebuilding, followed by hacking in unintelligible configuration files, followed by kernel recompilation, followed by pulling out your hair and realising you spend all your time on unproductive rubbish on the Linux box and all your useful (and pleasurable) time on the Windows box... or is it just me?
If you move from a toy to its real counterpart, though, you expect it to have at least the same capabilities.
If you play with a toy fire engine and someone tries to persuade you of the benefits of a 'fire engine' without a siren, hose or ladder, you're hopefully in a place to tell them that that's not the tool for the job.
I appreciate and support OSS, but I hope my students would not pick MySQL over Oracle without a lot of thought (and about more issues than licensing cost and politics)...
Answering my own question (since no one else seems to have bothered about this issue all day), IBM claim Cloudscape does have all these SQL92 features and many SQL99 ones to boot.
If it's efficient and stable I'll definitely be pushing students this way rather than letting them use MySQL (with which I've been massively disappointed, having been a 'real' - i.e. pre-Web - database apps developer)...
Citeseer only sees about 70% (iirc) of the papers in Computer Science, and basically none outside... and its attempts at BibTeX are usually rubbish... and it's up and down like a tart's... (well, until the mirrors are properly sorted and stable).
More interesting to some of us - how does it compare with MySQL in the areas that's not ready for... like providing for the use of some of the more interesting stuff in the SQL standards (subqueries, views etc.)?
(No, I'm not going to say triggers and stored procedures - I think there was just a story about this... and, btw, apologies if I'm behind on what MySQL does and doesn't implement since last year...)
I'm also quite aware of previous use of this word and not its biggest fan (there again, the same might be said about a word like 'monad'). Still, ontologies in, say, OWL (building on RDF) are lexica (as well as taxonomies and bases for reasoning also over logical axioms) and so I stand by what I say: what you're 'suggesting' is already accommodated in this world...
Other ways that RDF is represented - the means of the 3store is one (albeit storage and manipulation, not communication).
Structurally (and technically), btw, RDF is a labelled multigraph (i.e. multiple edges between given nodes) and XML a rooted tree with a single descent (ok, plus possible inter-node references defined in XSDL), so they're actually quite different mindsets when used to their respective natural expressiveness.
Defining a complete operational semantics for a formal language can be difficult (and denotational even moreso - yes, I'm a theoretical computer scientist), but formalising a fragment of the static relationships between concepts is far less so (and happening).
There's a lot of FOAF out there and quite a few good applications over it with useful functionality...
Ontologies, you mean - I think you'll find that this is part of the effort. Other than that, in disagreeing with RDF and proposing XML, all you're really saying is that we should use tree-structured data, rather than multigraphs, for the representation - one might just as well represent the RDF in XML... which is the standard approach already!
Ever heard of adjectives?
Z is inconsistent, whereas the aim of description logics built for semantic web technologies is foremost to be consistent.
VDM is a (refinement-based) development method (hence DM), and therefore nothing directly to do with the description of knowledge.
Damn straight. And it's not just Librie, it's SigmaBook too. Shame people would rather type than read...
Yes, I have to say (and I'm serious) that moving to Europe would leave one (as an American) treated better as a PhD candidate and with a much wider perspective, changing ones priorities drastically on socio-economic considerations...
I've only heard this from people who didn't even try... (Me, I'm writing up, chose the direction of my own research and I've been the primary author on all my papers to date.)
Which moron doesn't know the difference between analogy and moving off-topic?!?
In which case how could a validated OpenSSL be an alternative?
Probably same thing as when a commercial vendor has to amend their library; you either stick with what you had (if the change is non-critical), revalidate or ignore the issue.
Yes, the only thing that doesn't generalise to Europe about those observations is the poor grammar!
Catholic Church made all that effort with the gospels, they deserve to make a little cash out of it...
Yes, I'm sure they were just recouping their costs...
I agree, the summary is very poorly constructed.
A bittorrent of the program, together with a copy of the original paper, and then of the results, and I might actually have bothered...
I think that's really uncalled for - too little information is included in not just this article, but the original too.
Granted a person needs to protect their work until published, but 'simulating photons' is way too little to give away...