Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

Timothy, I cc the AI KR CG list, because OWL is described as KR

My understanding (Not an OWL expert myself) is that owl:thing is necessary
due to the choice of OWL being based on logical hierarchy, whreby thing is
an abstraction for the upmost entity in the upmost category
 and if it makes you feel better, you could probably mask it with another
label (such as owl:anything) without breaking it

I dont think there is a case for ditching or breaking OWL,  but rather for
understanding itse limitations, there is some good reading pointing to
possible workarounds
You could of course look further and start thinking beyond OWL

this seems a good read in that direction

Empowering OWL with Overriding Inheritance, Conflict ...
https://www.aaai.org › Papers › Symposia › Spring
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjG3dHdjoL6AhW6ilYBHek2AWIQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaai.org%2FPapers%2FSymposia%2FSpring%2F2009%2FSS-09-08%2FSS09-08-013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3VyQX7GXzZ8mrmiinnvBxa>
PDF
by S Hosain · 2009 · Cited by 9 — ing *multiple* different types of
*inheritance* with overrid- ing, and non-monotonic reasoning
The popularity of OWL for knowledge representation
in the Semantic Web applications makes it an attractive
platform. Although OWL supports some form
of object-oriented features for knowledge structuring
and maintenance, it is significantly weak in capturing
most essential object-oriented features such as single
and multiple inheritance, default class values, methods,
overriding and encapsulation in their true spirits.
It is also weak in extending reasoning support for intelligent
knowledge processing. Such features are becoming
increasingly essential in applications such as
social networks, e-commerce and knowledge rich ontology
for Life Sciences. In this paper, we propose
an extension of OWL toward a more powerful knowledge
structuring language, called OWL++, by supporting
multiple different types of inheritance with overriding,
and non-monotonic reasoning capabilities within
OWL. We demonstrate OWL++’s computability and
implementability by presenting a translational semantics
of OWL++ to OWL, for which we have robust execution
engines while for the reasoning component of
OWL++ we rely on Jena to support rules in OWL.

Also I hear SHACL could be useful used in conjunction with OWL
https://www.semanticarts.com/shacl-and-owl/

There is tons of stuff be the looked up I think, as starting points for
workarounds
and beyond OWL futures

Let us know if you have the chance of conducting further analysis
and send us a summary of your findings

PDM

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:51 PM Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm still befuddled as to whether my analysis has merit or if there's
> something basic I'm missing.
>
> I noted a concept sometime ago about "human centric web" or "human centric
> AI", etc.  (Early credentials CG work).
>
> Ontology Dev environments like protege use https://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
> therefore anything modelled after it is a subclass of owl:thing
>
> I started on a personhood ontology
> https://github.com/WebCivics/ontologies/blob/master/personhood.ttl
>
> Yet, now I'm trying to do some modelling for consciousness & various
> aspects relating to human agency, where the idea of structuring it all as a
> subclass of owl:thing, churns my stomach.
>
> I'm thinking about forming a broader upper ontology, and thereafter the
> implications.
>
> I'm also considerate of DIDs, which, from my point of view was always
> about ontologies on DLTs (particularly commons), understanding - making
> tools, isn't necessarily about a particular usecase / implementation
> structure.
>
> So, thinking is; if there's a time to break owl:thing (providing
> diversity) perhaps you hat time is now?
>
> Or am I missing something simple / fundamental, etc.
>
> The underlying consideration is impacted by modalities, whereby there may
> be a lack of diverse options available; if the tools aren't present to do
> it, distorting the wave function, via "things", perhaps unnecessarily /
> impactfully,  imo.
>
> Timothy Holborn.
>
>