W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2005

Re: It thinks that R1 P2 R2

From: Jeremy Wong <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:01:28 +0800
To: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Cc: SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-id: <002501c52781$559e2860$0401a8c0@wongkjo9u38gzb>

Dear Yuzhong Qu,

Thanks for your reply. See my comments and questions inline.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yuzhong Qu" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
To: "Jeremy Wong" <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
Cc: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: It thinks that R1 P2 R2


> See the comment inline.
>
>> Consider the following statements...
>>
>> R1 P1 R2
>> R1 rdf:type C1
>> R2 rdf:type C2
>>
>> P2 rdfs:subPropertyOf P1
>> P2 rdfs:domain C1
>> P2 rdfs:range C2
>>
>> My engine thinks that
>>
>> R1 P2 R2
>
> The imaginary engine is not good enough.

Anything I can do to improve the imaginary engine? In fact, I may use this 
"inference" as an application in my project. Let me describe here...

A part of the schema...

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="connectSignalTo" xml:base="&e;">
  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SignalOutput"/>
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#SignalInput"/>
</rdf:Property>

before...

<gom:Point rdf:nodeID="A0">
  <rdf:type rdf:resource="&e;SignalOutput"/>
</gom:Point>
<gom:Point rdf:nodeID="A1">
  <rdf:type rdf:resource="&e;SignalInput"/>
</gom:Point>

creating a connection...

<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="A0">
  <gom:connectTo rdf:nodeID="A1"/>
</rdf:Description>

"think"...

<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="A0">
  <e:connectSignalTo rdf:nodeID="A1"/>
</rdf:Description>

"Think" is the only solution I devise for the above problem. The imaginary 
proposes to the end user that the drawing connection, gom:connectTo, may be 
a signal connection, e:connectSignalTo.


>
>> As it's not a provable inference, the engine may need a scoring system to
>> convince itself the last statement is really true. What do you think 
>> about
>> this kind of "inference" ?
>
> It's a hard question.
>
> To score the possibility, more context infor need to be captured, e.g.
> 1. In what sense P2 is a sub-property of P1.
> 2. How many subproperties P1 have
>

Yes, I agree with you that it's a hard question. The scoring system should 
be capable of sorting the results for the favor of the end-user. In addition 
to consider rdfs:subPropertyOf property, I would also consider rdfs:domain 
property and rdfs:range property. It is because the occurance of rdfs:domain 
and rdfs:range can be more than 1. The scoring may work on the percentage of 
matches.

> Anyway, this kind of problem is too hard.  It seems interesting, but *may* 
> not be worthy of trying.
>

My initial analysis shows me that such imaginary may suffer from performance 
problem which is really hard.

>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>
> Yuzhong Qu
>

Jeremy 
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2005 04:09:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:45 UTC