Re: Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web

On May 16, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

> What you say ABOUT the statement is up to you, and requires an  
> ontology of statement-making or belief or responsibility. For one  
> suggested approach to all this (which avoids the rather clunky RDF  
> reification mechanism) see
>
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-57R1.html

I had a couple of questions regarding this proposal.

1) I'm trying to understand what it means to refer to a graph within  
itself. The following would seem to be paradoxical - if marketing is  
supposed to not use any statements in :G1, then it can't use the  
disallowedUsage statement, which means it can (assuming that they can  
legally use them unless otherwise noted)

:G1
  { _:Monica ex:name "Monica Murphy" .
    _:Monica ex:email <mailto:monica@murphy.org> .
    :G1 pr:disallowedUsage pr:Marketing }

2) I want to nest graphs, for example (the si are sets of triples)

:as_published_in_paper_10020102
  { :citing_paper_30301002
       {  s1 }
    :citing_paper_44357422
       { s2 }
    :claim1
       { s3 }
    ...
  }

It would seem this is not directly supported, or did I misread.

If I wrote it as

:as_published_in_paper_10020102
  { s1. s2. s3 }

:citing_paper_30301002
      {  s1 }
:citing_paper_44357422
       { s2 }
:claim1
       { s3 }

:citing_paper_30301002 rdfg:subGraphOf :as_published_in_paper_10020102
:citing_paper_44357422 rdfg:subGraphOf :as_published_in_paper_10020102
:claim1 rdfg:subGraphOf :as_published_in_paper_10020102

Would I be accurately expressing what I'm trying to, namely that the  
same set of triples s1 is in both the  
graphs :as_published_in_paper_10020102 and :citing_paper_30301002 ?

If not, what is the recommendation for accomplishing the same sort of  
thing? (or shouldn't I want to do this)

3) There is continued talk about the lack of semantics of reification  
being a problem and I'm trying to understand why this would be any  
better (aside from possibly being less verbose). The kind of useful  
thing I have seen cwm's log:implies, that can have a whole graph  
included or not included as part of reasoning. But this is outside  
the abilities of RDF and OWL. Given that I don't see why some  
mechanism build on reification wouldn't work just as well (e.g. bag  
of rdf:Statements).

Thanks,

-Alan

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 05:37:30 UTC