Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)

Very nice, and in N3 you could place the stack in your database like  
this.

{ <#JohnDoe> a :Person;
	     :name "John Doe";
	     :lives "SmallVille". }
		        :believed [ tr:begins "3 April 1975"^^xsd:dateTime;
			            tr:ends "27 December 1994"^^xsd:dateTime;
		                    :by http://people.gov.org/ssn/123456789 ] .

So that is saying: we found the information that <#JohnDoe> :lives in  
"SmallVille" from the web page http://people.gov.org/ssn/123456789
and it was valid during a particular period. We could name the right  
hand graph G1, then
we could further said

G1 bool:truthvalue <false>. [1]

So that we can end up saying that the statements are falsely  
believed. I think pragmatics are probably not far behind.

Henry


[1] I am making up some vocabularies here

On 30 Mar 2006, at 04:08, Harry Halpin wrote:

>
> Maybe I'm not seeing something, but I see a strange parallel!
>
>>  The message format contains six fields:
>>
>>  1. Message id.
>
> (Some of the) HTTP Header/SOAP Header
>
>>  2. Sender id.
>
> IP Address of client/requester agent of Web Service
>
>>  3. Recipient id (if blank, the message is posted to a
>>     Linda Blackboard, where it can be associatively
>>     retrieved by any module that knows what to do with
>>     messages that match the patterns it's looking for).
>
> URI/IP Address of host / provider agent of Web Service - although no
> Linda Blackboard per se.
>
>>  4. Speech act, which specifies why this message is being
>>     sent.
>
> HTTP GET, PUT, POST, et. al in HTTP header. SOAP Header.
>
>>  5. Language identifier, so that any recipient can determine
>>     how to read it or where to send it for translation.
>
> Namespace URI (still a weak point that needs development on the Web)
> that points to namespace of HTML, RDF, OWL, etc.
>
>>  6. Message in whatever language is specified in #5 for
>>     whatever purpose is specified in #4. =
>
> Representation retrieved from resource, like good old HTML, RDF, OWL,
> vanilla XML, SOAP message body, etc.
>
>> That's all.  The real power comees from the collection of modules  
>> that
>> are made available.
>
>
> If I ever get you and TimBL in a bar, I'll buy you both drinks because
> it's obvious great minds think alike. Maybe the Web needs more  
> modules -
> and no-one appears to be making a lot of money of this Web  
> architecture,
> although people are obviously addicted. There's some points where  
> there
> is divergence, i.e. to remain totally in parallel we should give every
> ordinary HTTP and SOAP message a URI (oh dear!). Also, I might add
> things with the Web get more complicated quickly. My point is that
> SemWeb is (kind of, and not only) #5/#6 in comparison with Sowa's
> system, not the whole thing. But the entire Web (Old-fashioned
> HTML/SemWeb/Web Services) can be construed as a system parallel to  
> Sowa's.
>
> Apologies for reneging on promise, and will stop posting on this  
> subject
> after this. What can I say, I've seen the light :)
>
>              -harry

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 07:37:48 UTC