W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: ssn "not machine readable"

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 01:39:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LyefnedD3Pae8rJYBsDNS05ASdHRr9KHxg55K7pnJfC1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
Cc: janowicz@ucsb.edu, s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Loving this discourse :-)  Giving a web developer an ontology is a bit like
giving a caveman a Ferrari. Dang that's shiny Thag - but what do you do
with it?  Is it dangerous? Tastes horrible.   Much of the Linked Data work
out there seems to be an exercise in RDF syntax, not in semantic
expression.  Things like using owl:sameAs to point to Google maps to
provide a spatial context.

We can make as significant different as long as we have a very simple entry
point that is caveman friendly, and allows us to layer on functionality,
and that functionality is clearly expressed (i.e. this module allows you to
check the validity of aspects X,Y,Z, this module allows you to discover X
given Y..

Must go get me a mammoth....
rob

On Fri, 20 May 2016 at 09:30 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Ø  It seems to me easier to make a more expressive module (Jano's
> vertical dimension) out of subproperties than out of additional subclass
> restrictions on an existing class.
>
>
>
> Not sure I understand why you say this.
>
>
>
> You can do more with restrictions (cardinalities are richer than straight
> domain properties).
>
> It also prevents an explosion of names.
>
> I guess it places more reliance on property-paths in reasoning, but these
> ain’t hard.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2016 10:14 PM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Cc:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu;
> s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: ssn "not machine readable"
>
>
>
> I'm still wrestling with this, partly because it relates to the hydro
> features ontology I'm trying to finish now, which will need to connect to
> omlite / ssn. I can see having an object property that is rdfs without
> restrictions. The question is whether to use restrictions on classes that
> use it, or define subproperties with their own domain / range restrictions.
> They should both allow one to validate triples at a finer level if desired
> but write queries with more general conditions. It seems to me easier to
> make a more expressive module (Jano's vertical dimension) out of
> subproperties than out of additional subclass restrictions on an existing
> class. I am probably missing something here, though.
>
>
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
>
> Principal, Tumbling Walls Consultancy
>
> Tel/Direct: +1 617-431-6431
>
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>
>
> On May 18, 2016, at 23:50, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Thank you for that pointer, Simon.
>
>
>
> I read this as an argument for local restrictions for domains and ranges
> (which are possible in OWL but not RDFS).  Both the need for “many
> unintuitive classes” and  “makes it much harder to reuse existing relations
> without significantly changing the class hierarchy” go away with local
> restrictions.  So I read this as “we really want to stick to rdfs but
> rdfs is not expressive enough so let’s make up something else our own way
> with no  semantics at all instead of using OWL “ (my paraphrase) . Or
> maybe there is some operationally-defined semantics I have not seen. Or
> maybe the ‘domain-includes’ and ‘range-includes’ can be translated to
> local restrictions somehow (but this is not obvious to me).
>
>
>
> Anyway the takeaway message for me is that, even for our “lightweight”
> ontology modules we need either no domain-range constraints (and so keeping
> inside RDFS) or local domain/range constraints (implemented by
> restrictions) and therefore not keeping inside RDFS.
>
>
>
>
>
> OTOH I am not convinced about the need for lightweight reasoning… why not
> enable sensible things to be done with our  “lightweight” applications that
> involve absolutely no reasoning at all--- and think harder about how to
> ensure smooth integration into a reasoning environment if required? Why
> should some simple sensing device that is just marking up measurements with
> a simple vocabulary be required to have any interest in reasoning at all?
> Or domain/range constraints that require reasoning for interpretation, for
> that matter (instead just documentation would do, would it not?)
>
> Surely the reasoning comes in only when those measurements need to be
> integrated with other information about them (say the sensor accuracy, for
> example) in a bigger world?
>
>
>
> So—I don’t think we should be thinking of the “SSN core” as “low
> reasoning/low language complexity”. Quite the reverse. The core should be
> the structure that holds the modules together with its reasoning strength,
>
> and those application-dependent “horizontal” modules should be as  simple
> as possible  but (formally) aligned with the core. An IoT module would be
> one of these.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2016 12:43 PM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu;
> s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: ssn "not machine readable"
>
>
>
> It seems that the schema.org conceptualization is of additive domains and
> ranges:
>
>
>
> “Relations are polymorphic in the sense that they have one or more domains
> and one or more ranges.”
>
>
>
> “Many frame-based KR (knowledge representation) systems, including RDF
> Schema, OWL (Web Ontology Language), etc., have a single domain and range
> for each relation. This, unfortunately, leads to many unintuitive classes
> whose only role is to be the domain or range of some relation. This also
> makes it much harder to reuse existing relations without significantly
> changing the class hierarchy. The decision to allow multiple domains and
> ranges seems to have significantly ameliorated the problem. For example,
> though there are various types (Events, Reservations, Offers) in
> Schema.org <http://schema.org> whose instance can take a startDate
> property, the polymorphism has allowed us to get away with not having a
> common supertype (such as Temporally Commencable Activity) in which to
> group these.”
>
>
>
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2857276
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2016 12:33 PM
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu;
> s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: ssn "not machine readable"
>
>
>
> The “more or less equivalent to” expression is of course a tautology,
> which formally says absolutely nothing at all. Which might be a very good
> thing. That is, to have no formal semantics around domain and range at all,
>
> because if we use rdfs:domain and rdfs:range then it will commonly *not *have
> the author’s  intended meaning (due to common misunderstanding). I think
> this corresponds well to  Krysztof’s plan. But  the schema.org style
> “Clayton’s semantics” (my description) might convey something of the
> intended behaviour without enforcing anything from an ontology perspective.
> Presumably there are some schema.org tools that do implement some kind of
> interpretation of that domain-includes and range-includes intended
> behaviour? What is that intended behaviour- is there some operational
> semantics?  Anyone know?
>
>
>
>
>
> --Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2016 9:35 AM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu;
> s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: ssn "not machine readable"
>
>
>
> Ø  What does schema.org do? I think it uses global domains and ranges.
>
>
>
> In schema.org the predicates are ‘domain-includes’ and ‘range-includes’.
>
> Classes specified in the domain or range are not exhaustive, and more can
> be added later.
>
> In OWL terms,
>
>
>
> ex:prop1 schema:domainIncludes ex:Class1 .
>
>
>
> is more or less equivalent to
>
>
>
> ex:prop1 rdfs:domain [
>
> owl:unionOf (
>
> ex:Class1
>
> owl:Thing
>
> ) ;
>
>             ] ;
>
> .
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2016 2:47 AM
> *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu; s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: ssn "not machine readable"
>
>
>
> This raises an interesting potential contradiction I have observed in the
> current SSN-redesign  discussions.
>
> “Thus, the core SSN should ideally be in RDFS or OWL-EL. “
>
>
>
> The thing is, RDFS can **only** express **global**  domain/range
> constraints or else none at all. OWL-EL  can do global and goes some way
> towards local but cannot do local range constraints in a meaningful way
> (i.e cannot do universally quantified restrictions).
>
>
>
> So… let’s say we do the core in RDFS (and let’s assume by this we mean the
> intersection of RDFS and OWL-DL so that we do not get into trouble when we
> build on it further). Then  does this mean we are aiming to make life
> easier for the low-power –low-tooling –eye-balling applications and also
> have *no* constraints on object properties? Is that consistent with the
> intended applications?  This is fine by me –as the extension to
> locally-defined constraints with more language expressivity will work – but
> are we actually doing a disservice to the low-power –low-tooling
> –eye-balling applications by this? Or do such applications really require
> such constraints and so we  put them in the core and are thereby forced
> into  a position of global constraints everywhere?
>
>
>
> What does schema.org do? I think it uses global domains and ranges.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu <janowicz@ucsb.edu>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 18 May 2016 12:10 PM
> *To:* s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk
> *Cc:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: ssn "not machine readable"
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am sure you have very good reasons to use global restrictions.
>
>
> I am not in favor of global domain and range restrictions because 90% of
> all people get them wrong and due to their inferential semantics this leads
> to unintended consequences. Most people believe that a global domain or
> range restriction on a certain property adds something to the definition of
> said property why this is absolutely not the case. Guarded restrictions,
> however, seem very helpful.
>
> The core problem with ontologies is once they are developed, people tend
> to look at the ontology structure with their eyes and use their own codes
> instead the real ontology structure to annotate their data.
>
>
> Ontology is set out to minimize exactly this, namely that people look at
> domain vocabulary through their own eyes. This is also why I proposed a
> stronger axiomatization for some of the modules that makes full use of OWL2
> (see e.g., the proposed property chain on the wiki). At the same time most
> scenarios will not make use of these features. Thus, the core SSN should
> ideally be in RDFS or OWL-EL.  Of course, ontologies will not and cannot
> fix meaning but they can restrict the interpretation of terms towards their
> intended interpretation and thereby substantially improve semantic
> interoperability.
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
>
> On 05/17/2016 04:41 PM, s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sure you have very good reasons to use global restrictions. If you
> could send me some links, I will be happy to read the good things about
> global restrictions and how it could be parsed using (python) libraries,
> such as rdflib. The title of e-mail is a rather strong argument and doesn’t
> completely reflect what I meant. The core problem with ontologies is once
> they are developed, people tend to look at the ontology structure with
> their eyes and use their own codes instead the real ontology structure to
> annotate their data. Due to human error, we end up having a big messy
> ill-defined annotated linked data. I have stated this issue with SSN
> validator (http://iot3.ee.surrey.ac.uk/SSNValidation/) as well as SAOPY
> library (http://iot.ee.surrey.ac.uk/citypulse/ontologies/sao/saopy.html),
> where a user can either validate its data or prevent having syntax errors
> during the annotation process. However, during my investigation and
> development, I faced with lots of difficulty to parse and extract the
> structure of the SSN ontology including object properties and their links
> to concepts.
>
>
>
> I hope this e-mail clarifies what are the possible problems if the SSN
> ontology is being mapped (e.g. annotation libraries) or guarded (e.g.
> validation tools) by machines.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Sefki Kolozali
> Research Fellow
> Institute for Communication Systems (ICS), home of the 5G Innovation
> Centre
> University of Surrey
> Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)1483 689490
>
> E-mail: s.kolozali@s <s.kolozali@qmul.ac.uk>urrey.ac.uk
>
> http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ics/ <http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ccsr/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016, at 23:53, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not understand how the lack of global domain and range restrictions
> make SSN not machine readable. Also, there are many good reasons not to
> include global range and domain restrictions (and for adding guarded
> restrictions instead).
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
> On 05/17/2016 03:39 PM, s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Hi Kerry,
>
>
>
>     This was a problem that I had faced when I had to parse and map the
> SSN ontology (along with a many other ontologies) into SAOPY library that I
> have developed (
> http://iot.ee.surrey.ac.uk/citypulse/ontologies/sao/saopy.html). What I
> observed back then was the SSN ontology was missing all the domain and
> range restrictions for object properties. I had stated this problem to you
> in an e-mail and you had told me that it was simply due to the fact that
> "SSN ontology is using global restrictions instead of local restrictions".
> To solve this issue, I had to add all the domain and range restrictions of
> object properties one by one by going through and reading the comments in
> the SSN ontology. I am happy to send my local SSN copy to you "if you are
> interested in", which can save you a lot of time.
>
>
>
> An excerpt the SSN ontology:
>
>     <!-- http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn#detects -->
>
>
>
>     <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="&ssn;detects">
>
>         <rdfs:label>detects</rdfs:label>
>
>         <rdfs:seeAlso>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Skeleton#Skeleton
> </rdfs:seeAlso>
>
>         <rdfs:comment>A relation from a sensor to the Stimulus that the
> sensor can detect.
>
> The Stimulus itself will be serving as a proxy for (see isProxyOf) some
> observable property.</rdfs:comment>
>
>         <rdfs:isDefinedBy>http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn
> </rdfs:isDefinedBy>
>
>     </owl:ObjectProperty>
>
>
>
>
>
> An excerpt from my local copy of the SSN ontology:
>
>     <!-- http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn#detects -->
>
>
>
>     <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="&ssn;detects">
>
>         <rdfs:label>detects</rdfs:label>
>
>         <rdfs:seeAlso>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Skeleton#Skeleton
> </rdfs:seeAlso>
>
>         <rdfs:comment>A relation from a sensor to the Stimulus that the
> sensor can detect.
>
> The Stimulus itself will be serving as a proxy for (see isProxyOf) some
> observable property.</rdfs:comment>
>
>         <rdfs:isDefinedBy>http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn
> </rdfs:isDefinedBy>
>
>         <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&ssn;Sensor"/>
>
>         <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&ssn;SensorInput"/>
>
>         <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&ssn;Stimulus"/>
>
>     </owl:ObjectProperty>
>
>
>
> Although it sounds like a fairly simple and straight forward issue, it
> causes lots of issues when one attempts to parse and use the SSN ontology
> in an automated way. The text written in the form of rdfs:comments are
> helpful for people but local restrictions are more helpful for machine
> interpretation.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Sefki Kolozali
> Research Fellow
> Institute for Communication Systems (ICS), home of the 5G Innovation
> Centre
> University of Surrey
> Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)1483 689490
>
> E-mail: s.kolozali@s <s.kolozali@qmul.ac.uk>urrey.ac.uk
>
> http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ics/ <http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ccsr/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016, at 23:11, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Sefki,
>
>
>
> Can you please explain further what you meant about failure of  “machine
> readability” with ssn as raised in the meeting today? Before that, can you
> do your test with this ssn herehttps://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/  as it seems
> likely to me that dul could have been the source of trouble and this is the
> new  (FPWD) version with dul removed.
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
>
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
>
>
> Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
>
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
>
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
>
>
> Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
>
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
Received on Friday, 20 May 2016 01:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:21 UTC