W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2002

Out of context, in context, out of subject ????

From: Didier <didier@phpapp.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:56:53 +0200
Message-ID: <3D1279D5.1080300@phpapp.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org


This my first post with this new adress. I'm in the process to
leave my current job to find a new paradise (i hope in the sw domain)
so i should not post with it anymore.
So i subscribed with my own @ from the free-software project
I belong to. I posted before many mails as dvillevalois@sqli.com.

I would like to react to some discussions that occured on the WebOnt
working group mailing list. It seems to be closed to AC reps, so i expect
that no people from OSS and freesoft projects will ever participate (what
i think is really a shame as W3 is to be a consortium but that is not the
problem for now)

Jonathan Borden proposed a solution to layer somthing like OWL on RDF
with unaserted triples. The problem is always the same: what we do introduce
as new stuff in the semweb is 'context is different for everybody'. This 
also for wondering what semantic level (thinking of layering) a statement
refers to (or its property refers to).

This also is similar to context as introduced in N3. You do need a 
solution to
express what semantic context a statement belongs to ?

I think that the triple:model property introduced by Michael Sintek and
Stephen Decker is enough simple and extendable to represent what you need.
Basic contexts may be represented with it. But you can also subProperty it.
This is simple and efficient.

What people needs on the sem web: semantic grounding. Lets use subProperting
and well-chosen facets of contextualization to define properties that 
contexts (dark contexts, assertionnal ones, terminologicals...).

With this property, statements may belong to multiple contexts enabling also
classes as instances, and other semantic level differences. The only 
problem is
that you must reify. But is that a problem as we will use 
languages that will be translated to a very very very ugly/verbose/awful 
syntax that will be machine readable/processable and, in those tasks, 
what is the
most important, 'many-context-assignable'.

I allready do use this method in my plays to not code twice the same 
facts and rules.
I just say in another document that i use same informations in an other 
context. There
are some rules somewhere that define semantic grounding (axioms 
selection) given a
class of context.

Thanks for your feed-back. Didier.
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 20:47:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC