Re: Which semantics?

On Wikipedia:

"A semantic reasoner, reasoning engine, rules engine, or simply a reasoner,
is a piece of software able to infer logical consequences from a set of
asserted facts or axioms. The notion of a semantic reasoner generalizes
that of an inference engine, by providing a richer set of mechanisms to
work with. The inference rules are commonly specified by means of an
ontology language, and often a description logic language"

CWM, which is part of SWAP mentioned earlier, uses a forward chaining
reasoner where someone specifies rules and then uses the --think or --rules
option when running with cwm. (refer to cwm --help).

The link I provided earlier to swap,
https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Processing is a bit dated. If you'd
like the latest stuff, go to https://github.com/linkeddata/swap .

In a broader perspective, here is a list of resources compiled for the
semantic web domain :

Indiana.edu Semantic  Course:

http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Z636Fall2014.html

University of Edinbergh Semantic Web Systems book

https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/sws/

University of Georgia Semantic Web Course

http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/SemWebCourse_files/SemWebCourse.htm

FAU Semantic Web Course

http://semanticweb.fau.edu/

Lehigh University Semantic Web Course

http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~heflin/courses/sw-2013/

UNB Semantic Web Techniques Course

https://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/cs6795swt/syllabus.html

Université Jean-Monnet Semantic Web Course

http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/Teaching/SemWeb/

Linked Data Tools.com Semantic Web Basics

http://www.linkeddatatools.com/semantic-web-basics

University of Mannheim Semantic Web Technologies Course

http://dws.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/en/teaching/
courses-for-master-candidates/cs660semanticwebtechnologies/

Finland Semantic Web and Ontology Engineering Course

http://www.cs.jyu.fi/ai/vagan/itks544.html

TDT-44 Semantic Web Course

https://www.ntnu.no/wiki/display/idiemner/TDT-44+Semantic+Web

University of Rome -Knowledge Representation and Semantic Technologies

http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~rosati/krst/

University of Koblenz Semantic Web Course

https://west.uni-koblenz.de/en/studium/lehrveranstaltungen/ss14/
semantic-web/semantic-web

Euclid Project
http://euclid-project.eu/
Dr. Harald Sack, Linked Data Engineering - OpenHPI
https://open.hpi.de/courses/semanticweb2016
Linked Data Book - Tom Heath, Christian Bizer
http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/
What is Linked Data? - Manu Sporny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q&t=108s


-Brent Shambaugh

GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
Skype: brent.shambaugh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Rules can be put into the file to infer new facts. There are inference
> engines and reasoning engines. I'm not sure what the difference is,
> but I think this link to swap might be getting close?
> -Brent Shambaugh
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
> Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
> LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
> Skype: brent.shambaugh
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Brent Shambaugh
> <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps this is useful? I was looking a reasoning the other day:
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Processing
> >
> > -Brent Shambaugh
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
> > Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
> > LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
> > Skype: brent.shambaugh
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <
> martynas@graphity.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Sebastian,
> >>
> >> nothing is inferred magically. However if you add explicit rules to
> >> your domain model, you can get both equivalence and ordering.
> >>
> >> Have you looked at the RDF, RDFS, OWL, SPARQL specifications? Here are
> >> some pointers:
> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#Equality_and_
> Inequality_of_Individuals
> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <
> ssamarug@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > OK. But sorry again for my lack of knowledge but does this mean that
> >> > 'semantic' inference of the kind of 'inferring' that:
> >> >
> >> > http://somedomain.net/people/John
> >> > (is the same as)
> >> > http://anotherdomain.com/staff/Juan
> >> >
> >> > is not possible without resorting in previous knowledge or
> dictionaries
> >> > or,
> >> > even worst, NLP over those URIs? Not even to mention 'inferring'
> >> > identity
> >> > between 'The capital of France' and 'Paris' or 100cm / 1meter.
> >> >
> >> > Another kind of inference that simply concatenating datasets just not
> >> > solve
> >> > is that of 'ordering':
> >> >
> >> > Joe takes his car out.
> >> > Joe washes his car.
> >> > Joe takes his car in.
> >> >
> >> > How if the statements comes in any order one could reason about the
> >> > correct
> >> > sequence. This will be indispensable for propositional like logic and
> >> > inference.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Sebastián.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Feb 14, 2017 4:20 PM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <martynas@graphity.org
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sebastian,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it is useful to think about the merge operation between
> >> >> datasets.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here I mean a "physical" merge, where records with the same
> >> >> identifiers become augmented with more data, when multiple datasets
> >> >> are merged together. A "logical", or "semantic" merge, with
> vocabulary
> >> >> mappings etc., comes on top of that.
> >> >>
> >> >> So if you take the relational or XML models, there is no generic way
> >> >> to do that. With RDF, there is: you simply concatenate the datasets,
> >> >> because they have a stable structure (triples) and built-in global
> >> >> identifiers (URIs).
> >> >>
> >> >> That said, you should try approaching things from another end: start
> >> >> building a small but concrete solution and solve problems one by one,
> >> >> instead of overthinking/reinventing the top-down architecture. Until
> >> >> you do that, you will probably not get relevant advice on these
> >> >> mailing lists.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Sebastian Samaruga
> >> >> <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Sorry for me being so ignorant. But what could be called 'semantic'
> >> >> > (in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > sense of 'meaning', I suppose) for the current frameworks, at least
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > couple I know, available for ontologies of some kind if they could
> >> >> > assert
> >> >> > between their instances which statements and resources are
> equivalent
> >> >> > (being
> >> >> > them in a different language/encoding or different 'contextual'
> terms
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > the same subjects for example).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Another important lack of 'semantics' is ordering (temporal or
> >> >> > whatsoever)
> >> >> > where a statement or resource should be treated at least in
> relation
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > their previous or following elements.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If my last posts where so blurry is because I try to address some
> of
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > issues, besides others, trying no to fall in the promise that
> >> >> > adhering
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > one format will free us all of any interoperability hassles.
> Remember
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > similar promise from XML: "All we have to do is share DTDs and
> >> >> > interoperate". I'll still trying to give the format a twist (RDF
> >> >> > Quads)
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > I'll publish a Google Document open for comments.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best,
> >> >> > Sebastián.
> >> >> >
> >>
> >
>