RE: Ontological constraints

One aspect of this is that it isn't necessarily essential to include rdf:type properties when we name individuals using a URI. Many of them can be inferred on-demand from the domain/range of its properties. In those cases, including them in an RDF document representation is just another form of caching.

I think it makes sense to emphasize properties over classes, especially if those properties are defined as owl:ObjectProperty vs. owl:DatatypeProprety. "is-a" is nice to know and handy for dealing with sets of individuals, but "has-a" says how and why somebody believes A and B are two different things. If the property relationship connecting the two individuals is believable, then it helps inform our understanding of the "is-a" relationships assigned to the individuals.

I think it's interesting to look at the DBpedia entry for "Pride and Prejudice" and ask which properties are problematic and why. How we could tweak them to make more sense without starting from scratch?

http://dbpedia.org/page/Pride_and_Prejudice

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:15 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR); Karen Coyle; public-lld
> Subject: AW: Ontological constraints
> 
> Karen, Jeff,
> 
> A late note on this:
> 
> > I think the key phrase is "sufficient to support the intended
> knowledge
> > sharing activities".
> >
> > One area of disagreement seems to be on the need to proliferate
> > properties to encode the domain and/or range in the property name
> > itself.
> 
> Tom quoted Karen in saying
> 
> [[
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:35:22AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > I actually think that we should emphasize the "has a" rather than "is
> > a" aspects of the resources we describe, and let the "has a" allow us
> > to infer any number of "is a" qualities. This is the message that Jon
> > Phipps gave at the tutorial day at DC in Pittsburgh -- that we
> > describe things by their characteristics, and those characteristics
> > tell us what the thing *is*.
> 
> Yes, that sounds right to me.  Emphasize Properties
> (relationships) over Classes. Verbs over nouns.  Describe
> things less through giving them a name -- i.e., writing a
> definition for a class of things to which they belong --
> and more through enumerating their characteristics.
> ]] [1]
> 
> If this is so, then I'd say that we _definitely_ need to state
> domain/range for the properties, otherwise The System (TM) will not be
> able to find out what the thing is, even if it knows the
> characteristics. Does that make sense?
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0025.html
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Lars
> 
> 
>   **** Bitte beachten Sie die neue Internet- und E-Mail-Adresse. ****
>   **** Please note my new internet- and email-address. ****
> 
> --
> Dr. Lars G. Svensson
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
> http://www.dnb.de/
> l.svensson@dnb.de
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] Im
> > Auftrag von Young,Jeff (OR)
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. März 2011 20:11
> > An: Karen Coyle; public-lld
> > Betreff: RE: Ontological constraints
> >
> > I think the key phrase is "sufficient to support the intended
> knowledge
> > sharing activities".
> >
> > One area of disagreement seems to be on the need to proliferate
> > properties to encode the domain and/or range in the property name
> > itself.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:03 PM
> > > To: public-lld
> > > Subject: Ontological constraints
> > >
> > > Pursuant to our discussion today on the WG conference call about
> FR's
> > > and ontological constraints, this quote I first saw when Tom Baker
> > > posted it, and later I discovered the actual article it was from:
> > >
> > > 5. Minimal ontological commitment: An ontology should require the
> > > minimal ontological commitment sufficient to support the intended
> > > knowledge sharing activities. An ontology should make as few claims
> > as
> > > possible about the world being modeled, allowing the parties
> > committed
> > > to the ontology freedom to specialize and instantiate the ontology
> as
> > > needed. Since ontological commitment is based on consistent use of
> > > vocabulary, ontological commitment can be minimized by specifying
> the
> > > weakest theory (allowing the most models) and defining only those
> > > terms that are essential to the communication of knowledge
> consistent
> > > with that theory.
> > >
> > > Gruber, Thomas R. ?Toward principles for the design of ontologies
> > used
> > > for knowledge sharing.? International Journal Human-Computer
> Studies
> > > 43 (1993): 907-928.
> > > (p.3)
> > >
> > > I think what our discussion was dancing around was whether we think
> > > that the FRBR entity constraints constitute the appropriate level
> of
> > > commitment. Some think that it is, others feel that it
> > > over-constrains. Perhaps the message from the group (for the
> report)
> > > is that the level of constraint needs to be investigated in
> relation
> > > to the "knowledge sharing activities".
> > >
> > > kc
> > >
> > > --
> > > Karen Coyle
> > > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > > skype: kcoylenet
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 14:35:22 UTC