RE: Feedback

William,

On Nov 22, 2016 2:58 PM, "William Van Woensel" <William.Van.Woensel@dal.ca>
wrote:
>
> The sets are overlapping.
> "Kinds are the intersection of attributes and a values aggregated
according a given Resource triple occurrence. For the triple (a, b, c) if a
is the Resource (Subject), b and c are the attribute and value and all
attributes and values of the same Subject are aggregated with common
attributes and values from other resources to infer class and meta class
relationships."
>
> If this were the case, resources, which occur both as subject and object,
would constitute “predicate kinds” (?) The sentence above doesn’t make much
sense to me, even after several reads. At any rate, this interpretation
doesn’t correspond to what I had understood from your document.
>

Resources may have multiple occurrences, as subjects, predicates and
objects. Regarding Kinds, for example for a given Subject, it SubjectKinds
will be the set of all Predicate attributes and Object values according
their occurrences in triples where there is that Subject (the set with
kinds attrs/values intersection is populated from source triples
correspondingly). Then aggregation is done for class / metaclass inference.

> Kind classes are aggregated type (class) information. Kind metaclasses
are state (instances) information. Its not a subtype relation, is a kind of
a class relation.
>
> Sounds like abuse of terminology .. The extension of any class is the set
of its instances, and meta-classes are simply classes about classes.
>
Maybe yes. I use the term metaclass to aggregate possible states of a given
class instance.

Regards,
Sebastian.

> Regards,
>
> William
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martynas Jusevičius [mailto:martynas@graphity.org]
> > Sent: November-21-16 8:17 PM
> > To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> > Cc: pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de; Juan Sequeda <
juanfederico@gmail.com>; ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
metadataportals@yahoo.com>; Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>; public-rww <
public-rww@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > Sebastian,
> >
> >
> >
> > please name actual datasources (Wikidata, UniProt, whatever),
vocabularies/ontologies (schema.org, Data Cube, etc.), data formats (XML,
CSV) that you want to use, and most importantly -- for what specific
purpose?
> >
> >
> >
> > Right now your document is so abstract it is incomprehensible and not
implementable.
> >
> >
> >
> > Martynas
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all, in response to Timothy's request I'll try to describe real
> >
> > > world problems / use cases I'm trying to solve: As the project I'd
> >
> > > like to be realized in this endeavor is a general purpose (knowledge
> >
> > > enabled) database back end with special features, use cases and
> >
> > > problems may be the same of the ones solved by traditional databases
> >
> > > but with semantic back end and special features provided benefits. So,
> >
> > > it will not do much by itself but to provide the means of higher
> >
> > > application / presentation layers taking advantage of such approaches..
> >
> > >
> >
> > > As the document I'm posting is kind of illegible stuff, I believe
> >
> > > sharing its link for comments will be of great help for me when
> >
> > > dumping my thoughts on the keyboard given useful advice is provided
for making things clearer.
> >
> > > Here is the Google Docs link (anyone can comment):
> >
> > >
> >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mJbhTJSi907vrXfMtKly5biAMnoZJ5T-Kz
> >
> > > iaIMIELuM/edit?usp=drive_web
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Please be patient. I have this bunch of ideas, all low level, protocol
> >
> > > like (nothing like an 'application'), for back end and infrastructure
> >
> > > of concrete semantic applications. Maybe not even a little part of all
> >
> > > the document is worth reading material or is not well written. What
> >
> > > I'd like is finally get to communicate my concepts to see if it is
worth coding a 'proof of concept'
> >
> > > of this 'semantic services database'. The reason I'm so insistent in
> >
> > > having this feedback and potential consumers before I do some code is
> >
> > > that I've made so many attempts before by myself and I didn't get to
nothing alone.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Best Regards,
> >
> > > Sebastián.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Nov 19, 2016 7:58 PM, "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Hi,
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Trying to follow your advice I've added a Scope section at the
> >
> > >> beginning of the document. The reason why I've found so difficult to
> >
> > >> describe this 'application' is that it is not an application but it
> >
> > >> is more like a kind of
> >
> > >> (knowledge) backend database where (augmented) RDF and metamodels are
> >
> > >> my 'relational' model. I don't know if exists some kind of
'relational algebra'
> >
> > >> for RDF so I started writing my own. Please tell me if I'm missing
> >
> > >> something important.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Regards,
> >
> > >> Sebastián.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> On Nov 17, 2016 1:05 AM, "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Sebastian,
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Writing advice I got early on:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> - First write an abstract. If you can't summarize in a few sentences
> >
> > >> what you are doing, then it is going to be very hard for other to
> >
> > >> understand
> >
> > >> - From the abstract, the following should be apparent
> >
> > >> 1) What is the problem
> >
> > >> 2) Why is it important (i.e. motivation)
> >
> > >> 3) What is your contribution (what is unique/novel)
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Your introduction should dive into a bit more detail on this.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> You should be answer each of these questions in a succinct and crisp
> >
> > >> sentence.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> --
> >
> > >> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
> >
> > >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> >
> > >> www.juansequeda.com
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Sebastian Samaruga
> >
> > >> <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> >
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> Hi all, its me again. I'm looking for feedback in this analysis
> >
> > >>> phase of a project I'd like to start building soon. The reason I
> >
> > >>> post this draft document again is that I've made some changes. I'd
> >
> > >>> like to have some orientation in the right directions I should take..
> >
> > >>> I hope not to be boring someone but 'cos what I'd like is to build
> >
> > >>> kind of augmented ontologies and metamodels, seems like no one is
willing to share this approach with me.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> Sorry if the document is a little rough written. I've wrote it all
> >
> > >>> on a phone...
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> Best Regards,
> >
> > >>> Sebastián.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >
> >
> >