- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 01:16:44 +1000
- To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
- Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>, public-cogai <public-cogai@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2KwRNpgMh+mUhDZMGUyv_nPjRP1VYaiDcz+-0eQq6=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
How is W3C not the international standards body for commercial infrastructure of the use of 'things', from a technical standpoint. On Thu, 8 Sept 2022, 1:13 am Timothy Holborn, <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>>
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2022 15:17:08 UTC