Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)

Just a note on upper level ontologies. I am not sure what they are,  
first of all, but if this means an onotology that is independent of  
context, then this may be something that is impossible. We may be  
able to do with the next best thing though, finding ontologies that  
requires the least contextual information.

This is where graphs and N3 really reveal their importance. I just  
recenly understood this problem in my mail to this list a couple of  
weeks ago, entitled "temporal relations". From there I went to on to  
discover Guha's very interesting thesis "Contexts: A formalisation  
and some applications" [2], which really ties everything together.    
You don't need an overarching ontology to work with. As long as you  
keep track of the context statements come from, you can write rules  
to move from more contextual information to less contextual  
information (see [1])

Henry

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Mar/0175.html
[2] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/101


On 3 Apr 2006, at 19:27, Paul S Prueitt wrote:
> You suggest in
>
> " The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper  
> Level
> Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that  
> ULOs can
> be expressed in RDF/OW"
>
> That there exist upper level ontology that meets all requirement  
> imagined in
> Semantic Web language and that it has been demonstrated that this  
> upper
> level ontology can be expressed in OWL?
>
> Is this what you are suggesting?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:50 AM
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Cc: adasal; John F. Sowa; semantic-web@w3.org; Paul S Prueitt;
> brian.macklin@cec.eu.int; timbl+speaking@w3.org;  
> colette.maloney@cec.eu.int
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation  
> of RDF
> reification)
>
> On 4/3/06, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:
>
> Simply put,
>> we must understand which web (or architectural pillars) most fits the
>> matter, the formal semantic web (i.e., the syntactic web, known as  
>> the SW
>> layer cake) or the real semantic web, something like this version:
>>
>> <Real Semantic Web> ::= <Ontological Framework> < Logical Framework>
>> <Semiotics> <the Web>
>> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
>> Ontologies> <EOL>
>>
>> <Logical Framework> ::= <FMF> | < ... > <EOL>
>>
>> <Semiotics> ::= <Pragmatics> <Semantics> <Syntax> <EOL>
>> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
> <Communication>
>> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>
>>
>> <Semantics> ::= <Signs, Natural Language Expressions> <Meanings>  
>> <EOL>
>>
>> <Syntax> ::= <Rules> <OWL Ontology> <RDF Schema> <RDF M&S> < RDF>
> <XML/SGML>
>> <Namespaces> <EOL>
>> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
>> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols,  
>> HTTP>
>> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL>
>
> I'm neither a philosopher nor logician, so forgive me if sounds naive:
> how does the above "grammar" conflict with what (if I understand
> correctly) you are calling the "syntactic web" - i.e. the Semantic Web
> of the W3C initiative?
>
> Ok, there are certainly differences, like here:
>
>> <Ontological Framework> ::= <UFO> <Upper Level Ontologies> <Domain
>> Ontologies> <EOL>
>
> The RDF/OWL view doesn't really make a distinction between Upper Level
> Ontologies and Domain Ontologies, but it has been demonstrated that
> ULOs can be expressed in RDF/OWL.
>
> ...here:
>
>> <Pragmatics> ::= <Users> <Web Agents> <Intentions> <Actions>
> <Communication>
>> < Proof, Trust> | <Truth> <EOL>
>
> and here:
>
>> <the Web> ::= <Resources, state, representation, identification, URI,
>> Unicode> <Interaction, sofware agents, hypertext links, protocols,  
>> HTTP>
>> <data Formats, HTML, XHTML> <EOL>
>
> - only half of each of these are explicit in the layer cake, the rest
> (I would suggest) being implicit parts of the system, e.g. the
> Semantic Web being an extension of the current Web, the current Web
> includes HTTP hence the SW includes HTTP. Both feature Users, Agents
> etc.
>
> So it looks to me like your "real semantic web" is the same as the
> W3C's Semantic Web, but for a few undocumented features in the latter.
> Where's the problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://dannyayers.com
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 14:48:31 UTC