Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the detailed answer.

There is human culture, and language, etc..  All in all we are a complicated species, but somehow, at whatever Latitude we are, snow, rain, heat, gloom of night, etc. we maintain an average internal body temperature of about 37 Centigrade (98.6 F). Humans all have this property, and we are the only animals with gadgets that locate us in time and space.  We wander around in an isotropic fashion like  Englishmen without dogs. It is not Brownian Motion, one can chart seasonal variation in "location" ... after all we might be Australians without dogs.

Here are the charts.  The variation over a year's time compared with "tropical variation" (tropics 45 Degrees N and -45 Degrees South) is tiny, tiny, tiny (> 13 arc minutes).
http://www.rustprivacy.org/2015/locating-humans-with-gadgets.pdf

Gadgets wildly over exaggerate their judgement as to our true location over time.  The commercial world desperately wants to believe they know something important and Linked Open Data cannot stop their believing. We can, however make sure we don't feed the beast.  It won't hurt RDF or Semantics a bit.

Stian said, and I would agree:
"No, this is dangerous and is hiding the truth. Take the red pill and admit to the user that this particular property is unordered, for instance by always listing the values sorted (consistency is still king)."
 

--Gannon
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2/18/15, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?
 To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
 Cc: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>
 Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2015, 6:10 PM
 
 Yes,
  there is the general project of capturing 100% of critical
 information in documents and that is a wider problem than
 the large amount of Linked Data which is basically
 RelationalDatabase++.
 Note
 that a lot of data in this world is in spreadsheets (like
 relational tables but often less discipline) and in formats
 like XML and JSON that are object-relational in the sense
 that a column can contain either a list or set of
 rows.
 Even before we
 tackle the problem of representing the meaning of written
 language (particularly when it comes to policies,
  standards documents,  regulations,  etc. as opposed to
 Finnegan's Wake or "Mary had a little lamb")
 there is the slightly easier problem of understanding all
 the semi-structured data out there.
 Frankly I think the Bible gets
 things all wrong at the very beginning with "In the
 beginning there was the word..." because in the
 beginning we were animals and then we developed the language
 instinct,  which is probably a derangement in our ability
 to reason about uncertainty which reduces the sample space
 for learning grammar.
 Often people suggest that animals
 are morally inferior to humans and I think the bible has a
 point where in some level we screw it up,  because animals
 don't do the destructive behaviors that seem so
 characteristic of our species and that are often tied up
 with our ability to use language to construct contafactuals
 such as the very idea that there is some book that has all
 the answers because once somebody does that,  somebody else
 can write a different book and say the same thing and then
 bam your are living after the postmodern heat death,  even
 a few thousand years before the greeks.
 (Put simply:  you will find that
 horses,  goats,  cows,  dogs,  cats and other
 domesticated animals consistently express pleasure when you
 come to feed them,  which reinforces their feeding.  A
 human child might bitch that they aren't getting what
 they want,  which does not reinforce parental feeding
 behavior.  Call it moral or social reasoning or whatever
 but when it comes to maximizing one's utility function,
  animals do a good job of it.  The only reason I'm
 afraid to help an injured raccoon is that it might have
 rabies.)
 Maybe the
 logical problems you get as you try to model language have
 something to do with human nature,  but the language
 instinct is a peripheral of an animal and it can't be
 modeled without modeling the animal.
 There is a huge literature of first
 order logic,  temporal logic,  modal logic and other
 systems that capture more of what is in language and the
 question of what comes after "RDF" is interesting;
  the ISO Common Logic idea that we go back to the predicate
 calculus and just let people make statements with arity
 >2 in a way that expands RDF is great,  but we really
 need ISO Common Logic* based on what we know now.  Also
 there is no conceptual problem in introducing arity > 2
 in SPARQL so we should just do it -- why convert relational
 database tables to triples and add the complexity when we
 can just treat them as tuples under the SPARQL
 algebra?
 Anyway there
 is a big way to go in this direction and I have thought
 about it deeply because I have stared into the
 commercialization valley of death for so long,  but I think
 an RDF editor for "Linked Data as we know it"
 which is more animal in it's nature than human is
 tractable and useful and maybe a step towards the next
 thing.
 
 
 
 
 
 On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at
 6:28 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 Hi
 Paul,
 
 
 
 I'm detecting a snippy disturbance in the Linked Open
 Data Force :)
 
 
 
 The text edit problem resides in the nature of SQL type
 queries vs. SPARQL type queries.  It's not in the data
 exactly, but rather in the processing (name:value pairs). 
 To obtain RDF from data in columns you want to do a parity
 shift rather than a polarity shift.
 
 
 
 Given the statement:
 
 
 
 "Mad Dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday
 sun"
 
 
 
 (parity shift) Australians are "Down Under"
 Englishmen and just as crazy.
 
 (polarity shift) Australians are negative Englishmen,
 differently crazy.
 
 
 
 Mad Dogs ? Well, that's another Subject.
 
 
 
 The point is, editing triples is not really any easier than
 editing columns, but it sometimes looks dangerously easy.
 
 
 
 -Gannon
 
 
 
 [1]  'Air and water are good, and the people are devout
 enough, but the food is very bad,' Kim growled; 'and
 we walk as though we were mad--or English. It freezes at
 night, too.'
 
 --  Kim by "Rudyard Kipling" (Joseph Rudyard
 Kipling (1865-1936)), Chapter XIII, Copyright 1900,1901
 
 --------------------------------------------
 
 On Wed, 2/18/15, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?
 
  To: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>
 
  Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2015, 2:08 PM
 
 
 
  I am looking at some
 
  cases where I have databases that are similar to Dbpedia
 and
 
  Freebase in character,  sometimes that big (ok,
  those
 
  particular databases),   sometimes smaller.  Right
 now
 
  there are no blank nodes,  perhaps there are things
 like
 
  the "compound value types" from Freebase which
 are
 
  sorta like blank nodes but they have names,
 
  Sometimes I want to manually edit a few
 
  records.  Perhaps I want to delete a triple or add a
 few
 
  triples (possibly introducing a new subject.)
 
  It seems to me there could be some kind of system
 
  which points at a SPARQL protocol endpoint (so I can keep
 my
 
  data in my favorite triple store) and given an RDFS or
 OWL
 
  schema,  automatically generates the forms so I can
 easily
 
  edit the data.
 
  Is there something out there?
 
 
 
  --
 
  Paul Houle
 
  Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF
 
  (607) 539 6254  
  paul.houle on Skype   ontology2@gmail.comhttp://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Paul Houle
 Expert on Freebase,
 DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF
 (607) 539 6254  
  paul.houle on Skype   ontology2@gmail.comhttp://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup

Received on Friday, 20 February 2015 00:49:32 UTC