W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2016

RE: Feedback

From: William Van Woensel <William.Van.Woensel@Dal.Ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 18:25:39 +0000
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
CC: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com>, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB2771971029AC793B7D92661CD4B40@BN6PR03MB2771.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resources may have multiple occurrences, as subjects, predicates and objects. Regarding Kinds, for example for a given Subject, it SubjectKinds will be the set of all Predicate attributes and Object values according their occurrences in triples where there is that Subject (the set with kinds attrs/values intersection is populated from source triples correspondingly). Then aggregation is done for class / metaclass inference.

I see. This may be the first intelligible explanation about “kinds” that I’ve read (well, aside from the part in parenthesis, and what follows). Regardless, the venn-diagram still seems inaccurate, since it indicates that subject-kinds include all resources occurring both as predicates and objects – not the set of all predicate attributes and object values occurring in triples with a particular subject.

To avoid burdening the mailing lists I stand by my previous suggestion:

I would separate out this aspect and start from scratch to 1) indicate what they precisely represent (no wishy-washy statements, but rather concretely and formally define them), and 2) explain the need for them, i.e., why they would be a useful addition to meta-vocabularies such as RDF(S)/OWL.

A complete rewrite, focusing on one aspect at a time, could be of great benefit.



William


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martynas Jusevičius [mailto:martynas@graphity.org<mailto:martynas@graphity.org>]
> > Sent: November-21-16 8:17 PM
> > To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com<mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>>
> > Cc: pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de<mailto:pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de>; Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com<mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com>>; ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com<mailto:metadataportals@yahoo.com>>; Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org<mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>>; public-rww <public-rww@w3.org<mailto:public-rww@w3.org>>
> > Subject: Re: Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > Sebastian,
> >
> >
> >
> > please name actual datasources (Wikidata, UniProt, whatever), vocabularies/ontologies (schema.org<http://schema.org>, Data Cube, etc.), data formats (XML, CSV) that you want to use, and most importantly -- for what specific purpose?
> >
> >
> >
> > Right now your document is so abstract it is incomprehensible and not implementable.
> >
> >
> >
> > Martynas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com<mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all, in response to Timothy's request I'll try to describe real
> >
> > > world problems / use cases I'm trying to solve: As the project I'd
> >
> > > like to be realized in this endeavor is a general purpose (knowledge
> >
> > > enabled) database back end with special features, use cases and
> >
> > > problems may be the same of the ones solved by traditional databases
> >
> > > but with semantic back end and special features provided benefits. So,
> >
> > > it will not do much by itself but to provide the means of higher
> >
> > > application / presentation layers taking advantage of such approaches.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > As the document I'm posting is kind of illegible stuff, I believe
> >
> > > sharing its link for comments will be of great help for me when
> >
> > > dumping my thoughts on the keyboard given useful advice is provided for making things clearer.
> >
> > > Here is the Google Docs link (anyone can comment):
> >
> > >
> >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-Kz

> >
> > > iaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Please be patient. I have this bunch of ideas, all low level, protocol
> >
> > > like (nothing like an 'application'), for back end and infrastructure
> >
> > > of concrete semantic applications. Maybe not even a little part of all
> >
> > > the document is worth reading material or is not well written. What
> >
> > > I'd like is finally get to communicate my concepts to see if it is worth coding a 'proof of concept'
> >
> > > of this 'semantic services database'. The reason I'm so insistent in
> >
> > > having this feedback and potential consumers before I do some code is
> >
> > > that I've made so many attempts before by myself and I didn't get to nothing alone.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Best Regards,
> >
> > > Sebastián.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Nov 19, 2016 7:58 PM, "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com<mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Hi,
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Trying to follow your advice I've added a Scope section at the
> >
> > >> beginning of the document. The reason why I've found so difficult to
> >
> > >> describe this 'application' is that it is not an application but it
> >
> > >> is more like a kind of
> >
> > >> (knowledge) backend database where (augmented) RDF and metamodels are
> >
> > >> my 'relational' model. I don't know if exists some kind of 'relational algebra'
> >
> > >> for RDF so I started writing my own. Please tell me if I'm missing
> >
> > >> something important.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Regards,
> >
> > >> Sebastián.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> On Nov 17, 2016 1:05 AM, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com<mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Sebastian,
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Writing advice I got early on:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> - First write an abstract. If you can't summarize in a few sentences
> >
> > >> what you are doing, then it is going to be very hard for other to
> >
> > >> understand
> >
> > >> - From the abstract, the following should be apparent
> >
> > >> 1) What is the problem
> >
> > >> 2) Why is it important (i.e. motivation)
> >
> > >> 3) What is your contribution (what is unique/novel)
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Your introduction should dive into a bit more detail on this.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> You should be answer each of these questions in a succinct and crisp
> >
> > >> sentence.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> --
> >
> > >> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
> >
> > >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> >
> > >> www.juansequeda.com<http://www.juansequeda.com>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga
> >
> > >> <ssamarug@gmail.com<mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com>>
> >
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> Hi all, its me again. I'm looking for feedback in this analysis
> >
> > >>> phase of a project I'd like to start building soon. The reason I
> >
> > >>> post this draft document again is that I've made some changes. I'd
> >
> > >>> like to have some orientation in the right directions I should take.
> >
> > >>> I hope not to be boring someone but 'cos what I'd like is to build
> >
> > >>> kind of augmented ontologies and metamodels, seems like no one is willing to share this approach with me.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> Sorry if the document is a little rough written. I've wrote it all
> >
> > >>> on a phone...
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> Best Regards,
> >
> > >>> Sebastián.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 18:26:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 November 2016 18:26:18 UTC