Re: objects to facts to links to LOD to ???

i think one of the important feature would be the query processor for
automatic query formation. this will involve making query processor
UNDERSTAND the data in GGG and the context in which query is asked.


however in the semantic web i havn't found anything directed at automatic
query formation. extracting any peice of information requires knowledge of
structure of data(ontology) and hand coding the query to SQARQL equivalant.
has any work being been done previously on auto query generators ?




On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>wrote:

> IMO, the (object->fact->links) is what RDF/RDFS/OWL does. So that
> complements those layers of the cake.
>
> The objective of the cake (the semantic web) is to allow serendipity and
> discovery. So I retract and what I said before. Discovery cannot be a layer;
> it should be Inference. The fifth layer is trust. The whole cake will allow
> discovery and serendipity
>
> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
> Dept. of Computer Sciences
> The University of Texas at Austin
> www.juansequeda.com
> www.semanticwebaustin.org
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Knud Hinnerk Möller <
> knud.moeller@deri.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16.12.2008, at 17:27, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>  Knud et al,
>>>
>>> I think Ravinder has started the process of fixing the current Semantic
>>> Web layer cake :-) Which is a very good thing (imho, but not seeking a Layer
>>> Cake discussion explosion).
>>>
>>
>> I'd rather say his proposal (objects->facts->links->...) is complementary
>> to the current SW layer cake. It shows what is going on conceptually,
>> whereas the current SW cake (which I agree probably needs to be fixed) is
>> more of a technology stack. An interesting paper I read related to this is:
>>
>> A. Gerber, A. van der Merwe, and A. Barnard. A functional Semantic Web
>> architecture. In Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference
>> (ESWC2008), Tenerife, Spain, pages 273–287. Springer, June 2008.
>>
>>  The tricky part is the interchangeable nature of "Discovery" and "Trust"
>>> in any such scheme layer-wise. For instance, do "Discovery" and "Trust"
>>> occupy Layers 4, 5 or either ? We ultimately want to reason against trusted
>>> data sources, but the serendipity quotient of discovery is a key factor re.
>>> the dynamic nature of "trusted sources".
>>>
>>> Since I am clearly thinking and writing (aloud) at the same time, I would
>>> suggest:
>>>
>>> Layer 4 - Discovery (with high Serendipity Quotient)
>>> Layer 5 - Trust (albeit inherently volatile)
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> I'm not sure discovery and trust belong in this stack at all. Not that I
>> don't think they are extremely important, but what I see in Ravinder's stack
>> is a description of the nature of data on the SW. Of course, what I see
>> might not be what he intended! :) The next layer should describe how the
>> data is different from the previous layers. As I pointed out in a previous
>> mail, I think this difference could be in inferenced data vs. explicit data.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Knud
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Knud Möller, MA
>> +353 - 91 - 495086
>> Smile Group: http://smile.deri.ie
>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>  National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Institiúid Taighde na Fiontraíochta Digití
>>  Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh
>>
>>
>