Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

I've been out tonight, so might not be the best idea to distil the complex
concept into a single line... but..

are you nothing more than a thing?

Should we promote this ideology in academic curriculum materials for all
young people - so they know they're place (/rights, essentially) in the
world...?

Timothy Holborn.

Timothy Holborn.

On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 17:17, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>