W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2009

Re: beyond 'formal' relations: describing relations between scientific and non-scientific material

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:58:58 -0500
Cc: Dennis - UT <dv.eprints@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <EA824BD2-3FF3-4FC5-BC7A-093D3389A4A0@ihmc.us>
To: paola.dimaio@gmail.com

On Apr 1, 2009, at 2:43 PM, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:

> Pat
> since we are on the subject...
> I have seen some interesting work done in translating existing  
> system documentation and even natural language texts directly to  
> ontology languagages (UML to OWL) for example, and I seem to  
> understand that some of this direct translation/mapping to OWL is  
> not so straightforward ( impossible?).

There are some problems, for sure, if one wishes to keep the  
translations strictly correct. But...

>  Would some of the reasons below contribute to such difficulties?

... not really. If anything, its the 'normal' restrictions which make  
things harder here, because although both UML and OWL-DL have strong  
syntactic rules, the rules don't agree. And neither formalism is able  
to ignore its defining rules. Hence the problem. Probably the most  
adaptive single formalism so far invented is the IKL logic we did for  
IKRIS, which can express just about any other logic-based content and  
then some. But it still can't do all of UML. (There are some  
slideshows about IKL on SlideShare, BTW.)

Actually UML is a really hard case, because (1) it simply doesn't have  
a precise semantics, so different UML users in fact aren't agreeing on  
how to use it; and (2) its designed and oriented towards describing  
computational systems, whereas the RDF/OWL/logic family have a  
different orientation and are based on descriptions, rather than  
modeling in the sense of simulating.

>  It feels a pity that so much good knowledge that already exists  
> cannot be reused on the web because of an OWL Knowledge  
> representation bottleneck

Well, there will be a 'bottleneck' with any formalism. If the SWeb had  
been based on UML, a much larger community would have been protesting  
about incompatibilities.  The fault isn't with OWL particularly, but  
with the fact that there are just many incompatible ideas out there,  
and the Web is forcing them all to have to worry about talking to the  
others, for the first time. We have all discovered we are in Babel.

> There must be a way of geetting around that

If you think of one, let us know :-)


> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat
> thanks, yes, it helps, by getting into the heart of the discussion
>  However, this is only a convention, and there is no fundamental  
> logical requirement why this must be done: OWL-Full, RDF and Common  
> Logic all do not make any strong distinction between relations and  
> other entities.
> but somehow, I (and perhaps others) see the lack of such a  
> fundamental disctinction and knowledge representation level the  
> cause of confusion, possible brittleness, at at user/pragmatic  
> level, maybe even  a cognitive barrier
> (I darn cant get my mind around simple things such as domain/ range  
> definitions, I have to think three or four times at what I am doing / 
> trying to do cause its awkward)
> for those who were brought up with data/modelling techniquest such  
> as E/R such distinctions may be central  although there is  
> flexibility as to what to model as what,  and properties are what we  
> call attributes, I think
> I wonder if at some point the OWL community is willing to take  
> feedback from users and engineers from different backgrounds, so  
> that perhaps future generations of web ontology languages can be  
> less counter intuitive and satisfy
> different modelling requirements/criteria
> or at least, start thinking about it....
> cheers
> pdm
> Hope this helps
> Pat Hayes
>> , I would be intersted in a clarification of why/how is that so
>> Paola
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dennis - UT <dv.eprints@gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We are currently working on a repository for OAI ORE resource maps (http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/toc 
>> ). In this system we are trying to describe relations between  
>> scientific publications and other material (both scientific and non- 
>> scientific). To do this we are planning to use several (RDF)  
>> vocabularies / ontologies.
>> A question is: how to cope with diversity in scientific disciplines  
>> and communication on the one hand and standardizing relation  
>> descriptions when aggregating publications about a certain topic?  
>> Vocabularies now available (FOAF, DCterms, etc) mainly restrict to  
>> formal relations and do not include relations concerning the  
>> content in a more detailed way than for instance 'dc:subject'. This  
>> may be the consequence of the diversity in scientific semantics. Is  
>> there any literature/article about this issue?
>> An example case is describing relations between scientific  
>> publications and their 'application'. For example: a publication  
>> proposes certain changes, government policy makers later decide to  
>> create actual policies based on this information. So far we didnít  
>> find any existing solution to describe such relations. Suggestions  
>> on existing vocabularies to describe / annotate such relations are  
>> very welcome, thanks!
>> Kind regards,
>> Dennis
>> University of Twente
> -- 
> Paola Di Maio,
> ****************************************
> Forthcoming
> IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
> i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at
> SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
> http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
> **************************************************
> Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 21:59:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:11 UTC