- From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 15:16:23 +0800
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cogai <public-cogai@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMXe=SrWmL8OBst1EXpHd9C8jPS-tO8cnC3a8X8JDZd0RLkKGg@mail.gmail.com>
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 07:17:15 UTC