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

We did some 'auto query generation' in our SemanticSever. The user draws 
a graph with some nodes labeled with a question mark, then the engine 
first builds the query for the users to make sure this is what they 
intended, then allows them to run the query. S-Server searches on many 
participating physical servers from the list you can maintain - it 
treats the Web as one "information space" hosted on many servers.

You can try S-Server directly at our site - www.semanticsoft.net. After 
login as a guest, the first thing you see is a "desktop" with a Start 
button like in Windows, but you are actually on our minuature 
SemanticWeb hosted on our servers.  Press Start button and select Help - 
this will help you to use this tool.

The  "canvas" (or "tissue", "media", "substratum") on which our Semantic 
Web is built, allows ontologies to be stored in a "transparent" manner 
so that the query engines "see inside" them while regular  digital 
artifacts are kept as blobs. "Folders" are just a UI simulation of 
Windows on this "canvas" - behind the UI you actually group resources 
(things) and, this manner, change the "topology" of the information space.

I would treat "understanding" of some content (like the content in GGG) 
as representation of that content onto such "canvas", because as soon as 
the content is onto the "canvas", the engines can query inside such 
content and they are  also aware of the context which is also on the 
canvas as Semantic Web formatted content.


Ioachim Drugus, Ph.D.
Main Software Architect,
SemanticSoft, Inc.
www.semanticsoft.net

रविंदर ठाकुर (ravinder thakur) wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <http://www.juansequeda.com>
>     www.semanticwebaustin.org <http://www.semanticwebaustin.org>
>
>
>     On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Knud Hinnerk Möller
>     <knud.moeller@deri.org <mailto: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
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 29 December 2008 16:29:21 UTC