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

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

From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:23:01 +0100
Message-ID: <c09b00eb0904011623g72af5471wfc4267f8aeb2a93d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Dennis - UT <dv.eprints@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Pat

and a lot to work on.
The problems sometimes in the management and the processes surrounding the
technology. Technology can be fixed. I am sure that solutions can be found,
but my worry is that, assuming OWL can be 'rewired', or  viable alternatives
to semantic web kr can be devised, what's going to happen to all the
projects that have costed zillion so far currently under development?
Hopefully there are still resources available to identify flaws and
rectify them

I am worried that viable alternatives may not emerge (or get stranded) due
to funds being tied up into 3-5 years projects already underway. So we may
have to wait til the system readjusts and past mistakes forgotten.

But lets stay optimistic, keep the door open and think of the best ways of
minimising the losses. It not easy, but a turning point for the progress of
humanity we have to strive for

PDM


On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> 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 :-)
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
> 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 didn’t 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 23:23:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:15 UTC