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

RE: Feedback

From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 03:08:29 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOLUXBtgDRhBELF6kbsvkmqQ-ZS5o9og2DULnQW+ZtAohwzm2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Van Woensel <William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca>
Cc: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
William, I've followed your advice and did a (practically) full rewrite of
my document. Hope it is more readable. Thanks for all your time and
patience. As a developer, I'm not good at writing documents. Regards,

Sebastián.

On Nov 23, 2016 2:53 PM, "William Van Woensel" <William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca>
wrote:

> Sebastian,
>
>
>
> I think I am not alone in saying that we’ve tried to make sense of your
> document, and have provided all the help we can. I am certainly not
> claiming that your work does not have merit (far from it!), but as
> mentioned by myself, Martynas and Juan, try to clarify your rationale and
> general solution first (What is the problem? Why does existing work not do
> a good job of tackling it? Why does your solution work better?). The fact
> that at least three people, with different backgrounds and from different
> parts of the world, have asked for these kinds of clarifications (on
> multiple occasions!) should be a clear signal. Currently, the document
> doesn’t answer these questions; and answers to our questions are just as
> unclear.
>
>
>
> I am not trying to dissuade you from using the mailing lists, but you’ve
> presented us with essentially the same document for a number of months now
> without any apparent progress, despite the multiple requests and
> suggestions from mailing list recipients. We seem to not be getting
> anywhere.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> William
>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian Samaruga [mailto:ssamarug@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* November-23-16 1:26 PM
> *To:* William Van Woensel <William.Van.Woensel@Dal.Ca>
> *Cc:* Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>; semantic-web@w3.org;
> public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>; Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>;
> ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Feedback
>
>
>
> William,
>
> All sets resources are 'reified' statements about the entity they
> represent (ie.: quads for SPOs, Kinds and Triples).
>
> Kinds are a special type of resource (statement) which have, for a subject
> kind example, a predicate and a value extracted from subject's triple
> occurrences. So they can play, for example, predicate and object roles in
> sets.
>
> Kinds are extracted from source triples and instantiated into new
> resources (statements) with class and metaclass metadata in their statement
> context (metaclass URI) and in their statement subject (class URI, subject
> kind example). Then, kinds may be reified into their corresponding SPOs and
> evaluated as classes/metaclasses definition by intention.
>
> For the last question I think I'll be able to encode much more metadata
> this way without resorting to constructs external to the ontology and do
> this augmenting existing resources by reification. The main goal would be
> to develop an 'algebraic' form of inference, reasoning, extraction and
> transformation of entities in the knowledge base.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastián.
>
> Google Doc (comments welcome):
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ
> 5T-KziaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web
>
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2016 3:25 PM, "William Van Woensel" <William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca>
> wrote:
>
> 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]
> > > Sent: November-21-16 8:17 PM
> > > To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de; Juan Sequeda <
> juanfederico@gmail.com>; ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
> metadataportals@yahoo.com>; Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>;
> public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Feedback
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sebastian,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > please name actual datasources (Wikidata, UniProt, whatever),
> vocabularies/ontologies (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> 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/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ
> 5T-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>
> 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>
> 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
> > >
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga
> > >
> > > >> <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 Saturday, 26 November 2016 06:12:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 26 November 2016 06:12:41 UTC