- From: Jos De Roo <josderoo@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:31:38 +0200
- To: Chris Yocum <cyocum@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJbsTZd74NRS_u0ZcEVrmB5S4E3ZUF5p3WaUojqSmuoUexYX1A@mail.gmail.com>
You could have a look at https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Logic.html and find "proof" or have a look at https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Rules.html and find "Oh yeah?". To make it concrete, a semantic web reasoner like Cwm https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm can check the proofs made by another reasoner like Eye https://josd.github.io/eye/ For a simple example see https://github.com/josd/eye/tree/master/reasoning/socrates or https://github.com/josd/eye/tree/master/reasoning/socrates Jos PS a bit related but still in progress is http://josd.github.io/Talks/2022/06welding/#(1) -- https://josd.github.io On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:01 PM Chris Yocum <cyocum@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Semantic Web Community, > > I have written on this list before about my project but I wanted to > bring up a particular problem that I have with reasoners that will > require some background explanation before I can describe the problem. > > My project encodes some of the most important genealogies of medieval > Ireland in RDF (git repo: https://github.com/cyocum/irish-gen, blog: > https://cyocum.github.io/). Because I am often the only person > working on this, I use reasoners to extrapolate the often implicit > information in the data. This saves me much time and I only need to > translate exactly what is in the source material. I have discussed > some of the problems that I have encountered a few years ago > (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Dec/0088.html). > I do not want to bring that back up but if someone is interested in > any of those problems, please feel free to email me and I would > happily discuss some of them with you. > > When I discuss some of the benefits of using a reasoner to some of my > Humanities based colleagues, one of the many things that come up is: > how do I check that the reasoner has reasoned through this correctly? > Essentially, this is about accountability. "Computer says so" does not > carry much weight. If I cannot justify why a reasoner has made a > certain choice when inferring predicates, some of the force of the > system is lost. Additionally, if I run a SPARQL query and the result > that is returned is not what I had expected, having a "meta-query" of > the reasoner can help me find bugs in my own data that I can track > down and fix. I do understand that I can always go back to the > original source material and try to track down the error that way but > it would something like this would make it much easier in situations > where the material is still in manuscript form and difficult to > decipher. Additionally, this is a trust problem. People who do not > work with computers at this level do not feel that they are in control > and this raises their defences and prompts questions of this kind. > > To sum up, my questions are: > > * Does something like this make sense? > * Does something like this already exist and I have not noticed it? > * Are there other ways of doing something like this without needing more > code? > * Is this something that is technically possible for reasoners? I assume > so but getting expert > advice is usually a good idea. > * If the first two questions are in the negative: is there anyone in the > community working > on something like this that I could collaborate with? Even if it is just > in a UAT style where > I run my dataset and send back any funny results. > > Thank you for reading and thanks in advance. > > All the best, > Christopher Yocum >
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2022 10:32:04 UTC