Re: Which semantics?

Brent,

This reasoner swaps automatically between back- and forward chaining during
a run, and its rules are self documenting.

                          www.executable-english.com

Interesting for present purposes?

                            -- Adrian

Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
San Jose, CA, USA
860 830 2085
www.executable-english.com

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>