W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: rdf-utils 0.2: support for diff and patch

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:20:11 +0100
Message-ID: <43C1820B.2050205@gmuer.ch>
To: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3c.org

Giovanni Tummarello schrieb:

> True, but during the transfer (that is in patch form) they do not have 
> the original meant semantic, it seems to me that "molecules" are 
> smaller (potentially) than the smallest particle of information which 
> conveys the intended meaning, example:
> one might have said "I know X and X has mailbox foo@foome.com X has 
> blue hair and X is 9 feet tall X is a creation of my fantasy, 
> disregard it" you basically split this into molecules , each molecules 
> carries a partial view of what the original person meant.
> .. some molecules will not have the fundamental part saying that X "is 
> a creation of my fantasy".

Your awareness that X is a creation of your fantasy is certainly 
relevant to someone who wants to make a judgment about your mental 
health - the consequence however I guess is "Judge not in an open world, 
that ye be not judged based on a subgraph".

Seriously, I think you're making an illegitimate semantic difference 
between labeled and unlabeled nodes, X could have an URI in which case 
the MSG have the same "problem". I don't however think this is a 
problem, because a graph implies each of its subgraphs so asserting a 
graph is asserting all of its subgraphs. In your example the statement 
"is a creation of my fantasy" disambiguates the  range  of "know" which 
can be both a real and a imagined person, you may consider using a 
subproprty of "know" with range "ImaginedPerson"

> Would the author agree that such molecules carry his intended meaning 
> individually? would the author agree that just some of these molecules 
> be added with its name to an external DB?
>
> On the other hand adding IFP is straightforward extension to 
> definition of  MSG (it is in fact mentioned in the published papers ), 
> but then again if you start minding owl arent there a lot of things 
> that can be done  ("same as" smushing etc, way more complex reasonings 
> based on cardinality etc..)?

Yes rdf-utils do not yet support same-as smushing as well as smushing of 
named resource in general. I was thinking about doing this by 
anonymizing named resources and having the URI as a functional data-type 
property (sorry owl lite users...).

>> 1. http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/pp/papers/Ding_ISWC_2005.pdf
>>
> Its a bit sad that these papers dont reference MSGs (first paper 
> published in [1]), but i see not even URIQA is mentioned, strange.
>
> Wondering, what happens if the same incremental path (e.g. add a my 
> previous example "I know X and X has mailbox foo@foome.com X has blue 
> hair and X is 9 feet tall X is a creation of my fantasy, disregard it" 
> ) is applied twice to the same graph (note, no IFPs are used here.. 
> assume "has mailbox" is not an IFP in this example) ? do you get X1 
> and X2  or a single X node?

In this case the patch command of rdf-utils returns a lean graph, note 
however that is not guaranteed in the general case so you may want to 
use the leanify command after a patch (/me TODO: add this as an option 
to the patch command, which would be faster).

reto

>
> Giovanni
>
> [1] 
> http://semedia.deit.univpm.it/submissions/ISWC2004_workshop_p2p/RDFGROWth_workshopISWC2004.pdf 
>
>
>> Giovanni Tummarello schrieb:
>>
>>>
>>> If model RSync is what you're looking for, the code in the 
>>> RDFContextTool lib ( http://www.dbin.org/RDFContextTools.php but the 
>>> code to use is really the one on the CVS) allows building a 
>>> fantastically efficent one for RDF graphs (RDF RSync or R2Sync). 
>>> Experimental results look really nice and the procedure is based 
>>> exclusively on RDF theory (and the Minimum Self contained Graph 
>>> theory  [1], also used for digitally signign such fragments), not on 
>>> the way some DB decides to store the graph (e.g. some DB specific 
>>> de/serialization idiosyncrasy).
>>> I just need to find some time after the DBin release to get it out 
>>> in in the public, but if someone is in urgent need of traffic 
>>> efficient syncronization, please msg me I might be able to help 
>>> right away  :-)
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>> [1] G. Tummarello, C. Morbidoni, P. Puliti, F. Piazza, "RDF signing 
>>> supporting resource centric requests" Proceedings of the Poster 
>>> track, ESWC 2005.
>>> http://semedia.deit.univpm.it/submissions/ESWC2005_Poster/ESWC2005_signignRDF.pdf 
>>>
>>>
>>> Danny Ayers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/7/06, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> rdf-utils 0.2: support for diff and patch Reto Bachmann-Gmür 
>>>>> 2006-01-07
>>>>> 24:26
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wonderful!
>>>>
>>>> Coincidentally I just ran into this, looks like you just covered 2/5 :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.daml.org/2001/04/iow/mit/index.htm.old
>>>> Semantic Web Development
>>>> Intent of Work
>>>> 23 March, 2001
>>>>
>>>> ·         Parsing and regeneration of DAML to/from a data store
>>>>
>>>> ·         Persistent RDF/DAML data repository module
>>>>
>>>> ·         In-memory RDF/DAML data store
>>>>
>>>> ·         Repository difference (delta) calculation module
>>>>
>>>> ·         Repository synchronization module
>>>>
>>>> ·         Basic Inference rule processor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Danny.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> http://dannyayers.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 21:21:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:11 UTC