Re: InverseFunctional Property based Reasoning & Inference

út 14. 2. 2023 v 17:03 odesílatel Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
napsal:

>
> On 2/10/23 8:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> út 17. 1. 2023 v 15:55 odesílatel Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> napsal:
>
>>
>> On 1/15/23 8:12 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Henry and others,
>>
>>
>> >> On 14. Jan 2023, at 08:19, angelo.veltens@online.de wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Henry , this is an important point to make. So having "copies"
>> of data like Ruben states it is actually not a problem, but a feature to
>> express different points of views of the world. I could have a birth date
>> in an official birth certificate, as well as in my address book and in my
>> list of birthdays. All of these documents can have different permissions
>> and different amounts of trust. It could even considered to be a feature
>> that I can be able to lie about a birthdate in one document, while I could
>> use the signed birth certificate in places where it matters.
>> > It is not just a feature, but a necessity.
>>
>>
>> Yes, the goal is to have a system rooted in unambiguous identity which
>> is what identifiers constructed using Linked Data principles are about
>> -- fundamentally.
>>
>>
>> > Solid is not about just having a POD
>> > to store just one’s own data, but to link to data on other pods,
>> maintained by
>> > others. If the main use case of Solid were just to store one’s own data
>> on one’s
>> > own server then we could go back to the 1980s and use a PCs with
>> Windows 3.1.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I always believed Solid was about applying Linked Data principles
>> to read-write operations associated with a Data Space / Pod.
>>
>> As per Windows 3.1 analogy, that's how life was before global adoption
>> of the HTTP protocol that enabled the World Wide Web.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I should not be updating the telephone numbers, addresses or birthdates
>> of my friends
>> > on my POD, rather I should link to their profiles where they keep that
>> information
>> > updated.
>>
>>
>> Yes, there are specific machine computable relationship type (relations)
>> semantics for handling personally identifiable information e.g., inverse
>> functionality as per the owl:InverseFunctional property type defined in
>> the OWL Ontology.
>>
>> Basically, reconciling disparate identities is a reasoning and inference
>> matter.
>>
>
> Thanks Kingsley 💯
>
> Possibly warrants a new thread, but do you have some modern examples of
> how InverseFunctinoal properties (IFP) can work in the real world?
>
> It seems to be that there is a lot of value here in being able to stitch
> together different pieces of software and giving users a better experience,
> and integration with the social web
>
> I am aware of how it works in tabulator / mashlib (solidOS) with smushing,
> FOAF and other historical patterns +
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/InverseFunctionalProperty
>
> Do you have a recipe or example of how IFPs are currently deployed in
> "production"?
>
>
> Hi Melvin,
>
> Yes, it boils down to a server applying reasoning and inference informed
> by the entity relationship type semantics of an inverse-functional
> relation. For instance, foaf:mbox is well defined for making such
> inferences.
>
> Related
>
> 1.
> https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/using-a-semantic-web-of-linked-data-to-reconcile-disparate-identities-83ab7a315568
>
> 2.
> https://github.com/OpenLinkSoftware/SPASQL-Utility-Showcase-Queries/blob/master/kidehen-ifp-reasoning-test.sql
>

Thanks Kingsley, that's a great blog post.

I like the way it ties together different identities (webid, twitter,
linkedin) -- I think this has a lot of value

It seems to me from the profile point of view you just add a predicate from
a vocab, and the vocab uses owl.  The rules was inserted, but I think can
be inferred from the library, such as SolidOS.  Then the query or lookup
uses those inferencess.  Again I think SolidOS could do this, I'd need to
check.

The example you gave was with foaf:mbox with solid/webID

There is an issue with using foaf mbox in that
- not everyone likes to make their mbox public
- there are other identifiers that people use that are IFP

We are also missing a predicate to use your webid/solidID itself as a
predicate from another profile, would that be a useful IFP?

>
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > (I should of course be able to keep a historical cache of what I saw,
>> so that
>> > egregious changes can be spotted). How do I do that? I have my WebID
>> link to various
>> > typed foaf:Groups, which each link to the WebID of my friends,
>> Colleagues, etc…
>> > on their pods, wherever they chose to place it.
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> But still the practical problems for Solid app developers persist.
>> When does which app update what data? The brithday app and the contacts app
>> would write to different documents and the promise of data re-use is not
>> fulfilled.
>> >> Perhaps the birthday app could have a feature to copy dates from my
>> contacts of I give the permission, but it all leaves the problem of keeping
>> data in sync that Ruben addresses.
>> > One way to keep things in sync is for example not to duplicate birthday
>> information
>> > all over the place. Should I keep track of the birthdays of the people
>> I know, or should
>> > they make that available? I think that should be located on each
>> indificual’s pod
>> > in a way that is discoverable from the WebID by following ontologies
>> that gain traction.
>> > That is the standards part that TimBL was referring to.
>> >
>> > This makes even more sense for phone number, living addresses, etc…
>> There is
>> > a pragmatic incentive to avoid duplication of information, just because
>> duplication
>> > is expensive.
>> >
>> > Now if you write apps that follow links in linked data, then where you
>> place the data
>> > is a lot more flexible. You could place everything in one document, say
>> like I
>> > do with my WebID https://bblfish <https://bblfish/
>> >.net/people/henry/card#me
>> >
>> > Or you could place the main information in your WebID profile and place
>> groups
>> > in different resources, with different protection levels presumabley,
>> >
>> > <#me> a foaf:Person;
>> >     foaf:name ”Henry Story”
>> >     foaf:group [ owl:sameAs </groups/friends#>;
>> >                  a solid:FriendGroup;
>> >                  foaf:name ”Group of Henry’s Friends”
>> >                ];
>> >     foaf:group [ owl:sameAs <https://co-operating.systems/groups/team#>
>> ;
>> >                  foaf:name ”Co-Operating Systems Team” ];
>> >     foaf:group [ owl:sameAs </groups/family#> ;
>> >                  foaf:name ”Henry’s family” ];
>> >     medical:record <https://nhs.org/2023432/> .
>> >
>> > etc…
>> > Using linked data it is very easy to split the data into varioos
>> equivalent
>> > sets of graphs in a way that would allow a client to find the data
>> > irrespective of its layout by following links.
>> >
>> > For that one needs good client libraries. I gave a talk end of december
>> 2014 on
>> > such a library
>> >    https://github.com/banana-rdf/banana-rdf/wiki
>> >
>> > Somehow I spent a few years then studying Category Theory to make sure
>> I was
>> > thinking about this right. I got back to building this where I left off
>> then in
>> > the past 2 years. The latest work is linked to from here:
>> >
>> >    https://github.com/co-operating-systems/solid-control
>> >
>> > Don’t hesitate to contact me, to get a view of where things stand.
>> >
>> > Henry Story
>>
>>
>> As per my comment above, tools need to understand the importance of
>> unambiguous identity, identity authenticity, access controls, and
>> reasoning informed by relations semantics.
>>
>> I've always seen Solid as an effort to simplify loose-coupling of the
>> following items for app developers:
>>
>> 1. Identity -- via identifiers constructed using Linked Data principles
>> 2. Identification -- credentials (or profile) documents comprising
>> relations where subject and objects are denoted by identifiers
>> (constructed using Linked Data Principles)
>> 3. Authentication -- various protocols for verifying credentials
>> 4. Authorization -- access controls informed by reasoning and inference
>> applied to identity principals, groups, and resources
>> 5. Storage -- Filesytem or DBMS modalities
>>
>> IMHO, these issues shouldn't be contentious circa 2023.
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> Kingsley
>>
>> >
>> >> Kind regards
>> >> Angelo
>> >>
>> >> Sent from MailDroid
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
>> >> To: public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
>> >> Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> >> Sent: Fr., 13 Jan. 2023 21:39
>> >> Subject: Re: Detailed response to Ruben's blog
>> >>
>> >> Hi Melvin,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for alerting us to this discussion.
>> >>
>> >>> On 12. Jan 2023, at 14:58, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> IMHO, Insightful article on Solid architecture from TimBL.  I found
>> myself agreeing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Worth a read.  In particular, I liked this observation:
>> >>>
>> >>> "The Pod, in RDF terms, is a quadstore, not a triple store. A triples
>> store is not powerful enough. The 4th part of the quad, the ID of the
>> graph, we call a 'Document' to make it match with the way people talk. They
>> might be called Named Graphs or Linked Data Resources but "Documents" is
>> simpler. The fact that the ;inked data in a pod is basically a set of
>> distinct graphs is really important."
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/2023/RubenBlogResponse.html
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that is the key argument. Graphs stores are good for expressing
>> one perspective
>> >> on the world, one coherent point of view. Each new relation added to
>> the store
>> >> is one more monotonic fact added to the database. It brings with it
>> the view of truth
>> >> as a (maximal) database of facts. Pushed to the logical conclusion we
>> end up with a
>> >> possible world: the complete set of coherent facts about a world.
>> >>
>> >> But
>> >> 1. no person is perfectly consistent or knows everything
>> >> 2. the world is full of competing and cooperating agents
>> >> 3. truth is discovered by a dialogic process, of argument and
>> counterargument,
>> >>    of asking for and giving reasons for one’s statement.
>> >>
>> >> So just that means we need ways to seperate perspectives, statements,
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> In a plain graph database one can only deal with this inconsistency
>> >> by refusing to do reasoning. And indeed those databases don’t do
>> reasoning.
>> >> They could not, unless they enforced one oracle to manage the truth
>> >> of all statements. That could work for one organisations, but it
>> >> won’t for the world wide web. Just think of China, Russia, US, Saudi
>> Arabia,
>> >> Japan, Israel, Palestine, and all the other countries as agents, each
>> of
>> >> which having very different interests and points of views. The world is
>> >> a multi-agent system since a billion years at least.
>> >>
>> >> A document is a statement of something by someone in a certain mode
>> >> (could be fictional mode or factual). The fourth element of our quads
>> >> is what is needed to name the result of the act of saying something.
>> >> The same graph produced in two different places is not the same saying,
>> >> and may have very different trust properties for example, even if they
>> >> have the same meaning. The statement by a doctor that I should take
>> some
>> >> medication does not have the same value as someone in a bar telling me
>> to.
>> >>
>> >> One can it is true accomodate multiple sayings in a graph database:
>> >> by turning the nodes for individual RDF graphs into a node of type
>> >> rdf:XMLLiteral with a content that would be an RDF/XML string. But the
>> >> nodes would be opaque to the reasoning of the rest of the graph, just
>> as
>> >> named graphs in a quad store don’t interact, unless one asserts a
>> number
>> >> of them to be true, or true in a world, or true in a point of view.
>> >>
>> >> Next. If we look at the naming hierarchy dimension of Ruben’s argument.
>> >> Oddly Ruben only mentions the placing of files on the file system and
>> >> the naming of those hierarchied but I did not see anything about
>> following
>> >> links to find the data. This is the error made by the Web 2.0 APIs in
>> current
>> >> use: they set a fixed URL naming framework for placing data on the
>> web, instead of
>> >> working with a linked data ontology, where following links is the way
>> to
>> >> find the data. In that case the location of the data is relatively
>> >> unimportant. That is what I thought HATEOAS was about [1].
>> >>
>> >> Henry
>> >>
>> >> PS.
>> >>
>> >> * The original blog post by Verborgh is:
>> >>    https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2022/12/30/lets-talk-about-pods/
>> >>
>> >> * And thanks Melving for pointing to the archived version
>> >>
>> https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmSB8WpxXAtd3Ny9G2ZsW39RJnRsfAt2X6Q7iNTGGWo9HE
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HATEOAS
>> >>     "Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
>> Weblogs (Blogs):
>> Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
>> Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
>> Data Access Drivers Blog:
>> https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers
>>
>> Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
>> Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
>>                http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>>
>> Profile Pages:
>> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
>> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>> Web Identities (WebID):
>> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
>>          :
>> http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
> Weblogs (Blogs):
> Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
> Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
> Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers
>
> Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
> Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
>               http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>
> Profile Pages:
> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
> Web Identities (WebID):
> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
>         : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this
>
>