Re: Ditch OWL:Thing = god? SemWeb 2.0

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.
>>>>
>>>>