Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

oh, overall; whilst the existing modalities are so very well supported -
does that give rise to ensuring other modalities are made unable to emerge?

in english, at least, i guess..

On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 01:12, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>