Re: meta-information about assertions

Thanks all.

Let me summarize. There is too main trends. 
The first(Phil Archer, Story Henry) suggests to keep
track of a "graph" and record graph provenance. If I
understood good, it means to use QUADS or to put into
my knowledge base only graph uri and graph provenance.

The second trend is to store assertions into rdf using
something like realization, creating for example an
individual assertion with an asserter and some
property 
filled with the assertion.

I noticed that Evaluation and Report Language, 
Semantic Web Publishing Vocabulary(WIQA) and Ratings
Ontology follows this second trend(probably also Proof
Markup Language), providing properties to specify the
asserter of something(e.g. in EARL an agent assert
that a document passed or not a checkpoint).

So i think that probably(if not exists), for
interoperability purposes, we need to formalize these
situations into a main specification(or extending a
suitable one), preferably grounding it with
description logics.

Thank you and sorry for my english,
Cristiano Longo 

--- Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de> ha scritto:

> Hi Cristiano,
> 
> as Steffen already said, using the Named Graph data
> model together with 
> SPARQL is a  practical and well tested way for doing
> this.
> 
> Reification is considered dead by most people
> working on Semantic Web-based 
> data integration. I think the only people still
> thinking about using 
> reification are the new OWL working group and I hope
> that they will also 
> realize at some point that they are running into
> problems with this.
> 
> If you need a vocabulary for representing
> meta-information about graphs, one 
> option is to use the Semantic Web Publishing
> vocabulary. A framework that 
> might be interesting for you with regards to trust
> is the WIQA Web 
> Information Quality Assessment framework, which
> employs the Named Graphs 
> data model and allows you to formulate various
> information filtering 
> policies using a policy language that is based on
> SPARQL.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/WIQA/index.htm
>
http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/WIQA/browser/index.htm
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> --
> Chris Bizer
> Freie Universität Berlin
> +49 30 838 54057
> chris@bizer.de
> www.bizer.de
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steffen Staab" <staab@uni-koblenz.de>
> To: "Cristiano Longo" <cristiano_longo@yahoo.it>
> Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:13 AM
> Subject: Re: meta-information about assertions
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > here is a WWW08 paper about this:
> >
>
http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~staab/Research/Publications/2008/WWW2008-MetaKnowledge.pdf
> > and here is its implementation:
> >
>
http://www.uni-koblenz.de/FB4/Institutes/IFI/AGStaab/Research/MetaKnowledge
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steffen
> >
> > Cristiano Longo schrieb:
> >> Hi all,
> >> i'm trying to merge rdf(more specifically OWL)
> graphs
> >> from different sources using collaborative
> filtering
> >> and trust related technologies. But my question
> is:
> >> what is the proper way to encode a "meta
> assertion"
> >> like "A says X about B", in order to deal with
> >> contraddictory assertions?
> >>
> >> Reification? Using SKOS? Something else?
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance.
> >>
> >>
> >>       ___________________________________
> >> L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla
> con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: 
> >> http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> 



      ___________________________________ 
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 15:21:50 UTC