Re: Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema

Yes, Guido


sure!
Wouldn't we have to work out the triples anyway? Please outline your
suggested method
thanks!
cheers
PDM

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Paola,
> maybe is a silly question, but since we are developing an ontology and we
> like RDF triples, why don't we simply use OWL? We would get DL formal
> semantics and a plenty of OS tools for editing (e.g. Protégé) and reasoning
> (e.g. Pellet).
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     gvetere@it.ibm.com
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>
>
>  *paola.dimaio@gmail.com*
> Sent by: public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org
>
> 05/10/2008 04.36
>   To
> public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>  cc
>   Subject
> Fwd: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig, thanks for reply
> I find the comments below educational (learning something)
> so I am forwarding them to the list to see if someone has something to add
>
> yes, CAPS are ugly, only here used to distinguish S/O from p
>
>
>
> cheers, PDM
>
> and no, I dont have a cat !
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: C H <craighubleyca@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: triples/ toward RDFizing the schema
> To: paola.dimaio@gmail.com
>
>
> Feel free to forward this if a discussion ensues.  No need to bug the
> list with it otherwise.
>
> > I am startedt to think of the schema being worked out by
> > Mandana as triples
>
> Wise.  Astonishingly good tools exist for manipulating RDF triples.
>
> > can someone correct the assertion?
> >
> > SUBJECT predicate OBJECT assumption:
> >
> > (whereby SUBJECT and OBJECT correspond to the entities in
> > the schema, and the predicates to the relationships)
> > would this be right?
>
> Yes.  Another word for predicate is "relation" as in
> entity-relationship diagram.  Generally the word "relation" is
> reserved for the very strict style of table used in relational DBs and
> the word "relationship" for ERDs which are much much looser.
> Predicates are somewhere in between in the scale of strictness - a
> wide range in between from pure logical predicate to vague assertions
> piled up in something like semantic mediawiki (a tag scheme that
> embeds RDF data into mediawiki pages, extraordinarily useful)
>
> > question (do we have to model all the triples for the schema to work?)
>
> No, but any kind of automated processing will stop dead if you don't
> reduce all the relations to three-folded SPO
> (subject/predicate/object) before you ask the robot lawyers to take
> over.  They may do very strange things like sue your cat if you have
> failed to reduce all the constraints to something they understand.
> Try not to give them their own expense account, either - robot lawyers
> can run up quite a bar bill at the gas bar.
>
> By robot lawyers I mean RDF reasoners and so on, of course.  What else?
>
> > AFFECTEDPERSON needs RESOURCE
>
> Suggests others like "affected_person needs refuge_instructions" -
> this ALL-CAPS thing is bad news, it prevents us from writing readable
> sentences.  When an [[affected_person needs refuge instructions]] it
> would be best to just be able to write it like that because then
> humans and machines can both read it with no translation (assuming _
> equates to space when rendered).
>
> > ORGANISATION has CONTACTPERSON
> >
> > ORGANISATiON has CAPACITY is RESOURCE (N TUPLE)
> >
> > RESOURCE has TIME/LOCATION/OTHER ATTRIBUTE
>
> While you're using them right here, be careful with preposition predicates.
> An "is" and "has" must be used very specifically, usually by "is" we
> mean "is-a-kind-of" and by "has" we mean "has-characteristic" or
> "has-component" or "has-resource" (different things, a characteristic
> is an inseparable attribute, a component is required for it to work
> properly and a resource is something it can share or give away without
> failing).
>
> Consider also the time relationships required to deal with a temporal
> database.  Korzybski said "is" and the verb "to be" were questionable
> at best and could mean too many things, crossing the actual
> operational time bindings we use in practice.  In real reality, we are
> *remembering* or *explaining* the past which is different from
> *sensing* or *comparing* the present state to other things present,
> both of which are different from *envisioning* or *predicting* the
> future.  The use of "is" and "are" in that sentence is the most basic
> and if you don't respect that distinction you get into trouble - for
> instance, confusing historical data with some future projection in
> order to get some entirely bogus present "trend line".
>
> (where economics goes wrong...)
>
> > does this make sense to anyone on this list, or am I
> > enterering another planet? etc etc
>
> Makes perfect sense to me.  But I may have to ask a robot lawyer.  I
> hope you don't have a cat.
>
> > Paola Di Maio
> > School of IT
> > www.mfu.ac.th
> > *********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************
>
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 361.550.000
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con Azionista Unico
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)




-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************