W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2008

Re: objects to facts to links to LOD to ???

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:27:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4947E4E8.2040503@openlinksw.com>
To: Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>
CC: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, "रविंदर ठाकुर (ravinder thakur)" <ravinderthakur@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

On 12/16/08 10:44 AM, Knud Hinnerk Möller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure about the discovery part - that seems to be more a 
> meta-layer with data describing linked datasets (VoiD [1]). However, I 
> agree that inference would have to be in layer 4 and up. Things like 
> non-explicit object consolidation, vocabulary and ontology mapping, 
> etc. will be necessary to integrate the data even beyond the point of 
> explicit links.
>
> @ravinder: I like the three layers you propose - is there a reference 
> for that, or did you come up with it just now? I'd love to reference 
> it in my PhD thesis!
>
> Cheers,
> Knud
Knud et al,

I think Ravinder has started the process of fixing the current Semantic 
Web layer cake :-) Which is a very good thing (imho, but not seeking a 
Layer Cake discussion explosion).

The tricky part is the interchangeable nature of "Discovery" and "Trust" 
in any such scheme layer-wise. For instance, do "Discovery" and "Trust" 
occupy Layers 4, 5 or either ? We ultimately want to reason against 
trusted data sources, but the serendipity quotient of discovery is a key 
factor re. the dynamic nature of "trusted sources".

Since I am clearly thinking and writing (aloud) at the same time, I 
would suggest:

Layer 4 - Discovery (with high Serendipity Quotient)
Layer 5 - Trust (albeit inherently volatile)

Kingsley
>
>
> [1] http://semanticweb.org/wiki/VoiD
> On 15.12.2008, at 20:54, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>
>> Hi Ravinder,
>>
>> Interesting points. I would say that Layer 4 would be "discovery". 
>> Furthermore, this would be an inference layer that would allow 
>> discovery. After having linked data, applications will be able to 
>> discover new data. So maybe layer 4 and up are part of the 
>> applications that enable discovery. Anyways, that is what I see what 
>> the semantic web is about: discovery and serendipity.
>>
>> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
>> Dept. of Computer Sciences
>> The University of Texas at Austin
>> www.juansequeda.com
>> www.semanticwebaustin.org
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM, रविंदर ठाकुर (ravinder thakur) 
>> <ravinderthakur@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Friends,
>>
>>
>> We have now reasonably good repository of linked data but i am not 
>> able to find any good application being made out of it. From the 
>> dicsussion on these mailing lists and other places, i got the feeling 
>> that everyone in semantic world thinks that semantic web is something 
>> big but unfortunately nobody is able to think of an application for 
>> _general public_ that can be based on semantic web data we have 
>> currently.
>>
>>
>> This led me to wonder that are there any more layers of information 
>> organization missing in the semantic web stack that are needed to 
>> generate good usable semantic web data which can be more useful for 
>> generating useful semantic apps . Few of the concepts i was thinking 
>> for upper layers to implement were like categorization, set 
>> formation(eg MIT passout in 2002), set intersection, etc. With these 
>> higher level layers I was hoping to build a system to find higher 
>> level relations say between places with low cancer rates and the food 
>> people eat there or any perticular gene found in such people.
>>
>>
>> The current semantic stack looks like this:
>> .....
>> layer5 (???)
>> layer4 ( ???)
>> layer3 linked facts (isa(mars,planet) AND partof(mars,solarsystem) 
>> AND mass(mars,6566.1255kg))
>> layer2 facts (isa(mars,planet), isa(cow,animal))
>> layer1 objects (eg cow, mars, man)
>>
>>
>>
>> Are there any other thoughts on the need of layers above the layer 3 
>> (linked data ) or these layers will be defined by the respective apps 
>> developers ? Even if there isn't any need, i would atleast like to 
>> have a discussion on the kind upper level layers we might need :)
>>
>>
>> thanks
>> ravinder thakur
>>
>>
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Knud Möller, MA
> +353 - 91 - 495086
> Smile Group: http://smile.deri.ie
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Galway
> Institiúid Taighde na Fiontraíochta Digití
> Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh
>
>
>


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 17:27:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:26 GMT