Re: looking for a social schema

Hi John, that could be nice for some aspects but what about
A friend of B
A friend of C
and
B friend of C exists

Cheers
Ghalem

Le 18/11/2011 18:48, Breslin, John a écrit :
> How about applying the number of contacts to an account rather than a person? That way you could assume num_contacts or num_followers is known... for the site the account is on.
>
> We have properties in SIOC like num_replies and num_views for content items.
>
> John
> http://bresl.in
>
> On 18 Nov 2011, at 17:24, "Ghalem Ouadjed (EOWEO)"<gouadjed@eoweo.com>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 18/11/2011 16:48, Paul Gearon a écrit :
>>> Hi Heiko,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Heiko Paulheim
>>> <paulheim@ke.tu-darmstadt.de>   wrote:
>>>> Due to the open world assumption, the value of that counter would (probably)
>>>> we wrong.
>>>>
>>>> If I have
>>>> :Peter foaf:knows :Stephen .
>>>> :Peter foaf:knows :Marc .
>>>>
>>>> and, based on that knowledge, I added
>>>>
>>>> :Peter myschema:friendnb "2"^^xsd:integer .
>>>>
>>>> this would not be a valid conclusion - there may be a lot more friends of
>>>> Peter which are not in my knowledge base (don't we all have friends without
>>>> a facebook account?), and :Stephen and :Marc might even refer to the same
>>>> person. In other words, with that approach, I would add knowledge to my
>>>> knowledge base which is potentially wrong.
>>> While you are correct in saying that the inference of 2 friends is
>>> invalid, the idea of cardinality is not inconsistent with the open
>>> world assumption (OWA). Melvin's original question was about a
>>> property that can be used to declare cardinality, and this is fine
>>> with the OWA. Indeed, OWL uses it.
>>>
>>> So, for instance, if you declare:
>>>
>>>   :Peter myschema:friendnb "2"^^xsd:integer .
>>>
>>> and then you say:
>>>
>>>   :Peter foaf:knows :Stephen .
>>>   :Peter foaf:knows :Marc .
>>>   :Stephen owl:differentFrom :Marc .
>>>
>>> Then you know that we have identified all the friends of :Peter. This
>>> does not preclude another statement of the form:
>>>
>>>   :Peter foaf:knows :Steve .
>>>
>>> But since we already knew all of :Peter's friends, then we know that
>>> this new statement must refer to an alias for one of the existing
>>> friends.
>>>
>>> Taking it further:
>>>
>>>   :Steve owl:differentFrom :Marc .
>>>
>>> Means that:
>>>
>>>   :Steve owl:sameAs :Stephen .
>>>
>>> All of this is just a long-winded way of explaining that a cardinality
>>> predicate is not in conflict with the open world assumption. However,
>>> it works with different use cases than with the closed world.
>>> Specifically, under the OWA you cannot derive the current cardinality,
>>> but you can declare it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Paul Gearon
>>>
>> So i could have an "Owner" (of an account) class and a "Friends" class which are subclasses of an union of both
>> and an inverse hasFriends - isFriendOf and a value restrictions right?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Ghalem
>>

Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 18:48:27 UTC