Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

Hi Hugh,

yes I agree and thanks for the pointer which we will check carefully. 
Actually we could enfore some strong recommendations for future 
information items in the distributed sources but why should you waste 
your time when you can hid the issue behind same-as. Full agreement! My 
point was more:

- we started to define a framework for finding "nice" URIs for touristic 
information coming from heterogeneous sources (events, accommodations, 
trails, PoI, restaurants, etc.). Close to the end of our exercise we 
realized that what we are actually doing is just a special case of 
duplication detection, entity resolution, etc., etc., etc., etc. We even 
started to wonder whether we really need these "nice" URIs or better 
just describe entities by their properties and use a strange blank note 
as an "identifier". The first time after more than 20 years (also 
through the help of Andreas who was eating my ears on this issue) I 
started to understand why some nurts are so dedicated about them. In the 
end what is better, a random number as identifier or the magic of an 
existential variable.

- Especially the comment of Dan on global scale skolems made me a bit 
worrying, too. We seem to try very hard to turn the duplication 
detection, entity resolution, etc., etc., etc. problem to its full 
potential and we somehow would seem to try to give names to formulae and 
sets of entities. Now I know that for FOL even Aidans' super power 
approach would not work (or say semi-work). For a simple logic as RDF it 
may; but still? [1]

So summarizing blank notes in a nutshell: I hope very much that they are 
not just another rdf:typo. What I mean: Would it not be nice to have RDF 
as a simple data model and RDFS etc. as a first simple logical languages 
on top of them? Maybe much too late and also wrong, however, can we 
ignore the rumour on the street that steadily (!) pops up quite visible 
on this slightly magic stuff.

Greetings,

Dieter

[1] Btw, I would not mind if I get harshly corrected as I talk alongside 
the boundaries of my knowledge.

On 05.07.2020 23:16, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Hi Dieter.
>
> That sounds very like the sort of thing that we use sameAs services for.
> In particular, if you don't bring the data into one store, you can't do "normalisation" without writing stuff back into multiple sources stores.
> I guess you are bringing the data into one store, so you can use normative URIs.
>
> If not, a while ago we spent a while building an Open Source sameAs Lite service (including a lot of benchmarks to optimise the table structure.)
> It's at https://github.com/seme4/sameas-lite
> The Github structure seems to have degraded a little since then but I'm sure would be serviceable if you found it useful - we'd be happy to help.
>
> Even if you are managing URIs, you might find this way of managing them has benefits.
>
> Best
> Hugh
>
>> On 5 Jul 2020, at 15:37, Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. We may use this work in a project where we try to normalize URIs for a German Tourstic Knowledge Graph. There may be different URIs from different sources and we normalise these and give them a normative URl from established data sources on the web if possible (sorry in German [1]). Otherwise we some randomly generated IDs. Your work also may have relations to ID generation like studies in the OCCAM project or general in the IoT field (as Dan indirectly points out).
>>
>> [1]
>>
> ...
>> -- 
>> Dieter Fensel
>> Chair STI Innsbruck
>> University of Innsbruck, Austria
>> www.sti-innsbruck.at/
>> tel +43-664 3964684
>>
>>
-- 
Dieter Fensel
Chair STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
www.sti-innsbruck.at/
tel +43-664 3964684

Received on Monday, 6 July 2020 20:44:21 UTC