Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

Hi everyone,

Timothy, very good point, indeed.
I've tried to find the exact line <nnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment :entity
"Entity. An entity is a real-world thing. The notion encompasses pallets
piled with cartons, the cartons, and each item that they contain; plus
artefacts such as computers and mobile phones; and animals and human
beings.")> that associates*:Human* and *owl:Thing*, but I didn't arrive to.

But, I've seen that the definition of *Entity *by Roger Clarke is maybe
being used,

"*An entity is a real-world thing.* The notion [...]"

Well,  from this definition, we have an *entity* as being an *instance* of
Real-World thing class, ontologically speaking.
What, from OWL's definition of Thing*, may sound a bit contradictory, as
ontology is essentially the study of *beings* (from *ent *in Latin, which
later, ~18th, becomes *ont*), and not of Things.

Actually, that leads us probably to another philosophical intriguing
question, the *diachronic identity*:
*"does the identity of a given Entity exists throughout time?"*

So, if the definition of *Thing *itself intrinsically needs the concept of
Time and Space to exist, and,
the definition of *Entity *exists either as a concept, as the logical
boundaries of a given identity, or as a being, immersed in the material
world,

So, IMHO, *Human, *and its cognition-related faculties should be subclasses
of *Entity*, instead.

Thank you for bringing that into the discussion,
and I hope that enlightens somehow the problematic.

Best wishes;
a great week for everyone.

**owl:thing: **"The class of OWL individuals." ;*




Em qua., 7 de set. de 2022 às 12:17, Timothy Holborn <
timothy.holborn@gmail.com> escreveu:

> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
Gabriel Lopes
*Interoperability as Jam's sessions!*
*Each system emanating the music that crosses itself, instrumentalizing
scores and ranges...*
*... of Resonance, vibrations, information, data, symbols, ..., Notes.*

*How interoperable are we with the Music the World continuously offers to
our senses?*
*Maybe it depends on our foundations...?*