Re: Inferred graph vocabulary?

Hi Andrew,

VoiD contains terms for expressing subset relationships between graphs  
(we call them datasets), and for listing the vocabularies/ontologies  
that are used in a dataset. The upcoming refined version 2 of voiD  
will allow you to tie void:Datasets to the named graphs in a triple  
store. Furthermore, with the void:Feature mechanism you could define  
features with meaning such as "this graph includes entailed triples  
under RDFS semantics" etc.

This could get you *close* to expressing what you want, but perhaps  
not quite at the level of detail that you want. VoiD is focused a bit  
more on finding/connecting/high-level overview of datasets.

I think the Provenance Vocabulary [1] provides a nice framework for  
the kind of stuff you want to do. You could for example see a reasoner  
as a kind of "data creating service" in the terminology of this  
vocabulary.

There are several publications on "networked graphs" that also seem  
related.

Finally let me ask what's the purpose of publishing/sharing/exchanging  
descriptions of those reasoning processes. If you just use this for  
internal data management, then just define your own internal vocabulary.

Best,
Richard

[1] http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/trdf/index.php?title=Guide_to_the_Provenance_Vocabulary


On 19 Oct 2009, at 11:04, Andrew Gibson wrote:
> Does anyone know of, or is perhaps working on, a vocabulary of terms  
> to describe the relationships between graphs that have been involved  
> in some reasoning process?
>
> For example, I might take graph <G>, and with ontology <O>, create a  
> graph of inferred triples <I>, using reasoner R. I then want to add  
> <I> to my triplestore. I would then want to also specify the  
> provenance of the inferred graph (from <G> and <O>), and the  
> metadata associated with its creation (R etc).
>
> This is my particular scenario, I can imagine others. I had thought  
> that this might fall under the jurisdiction of VoID, but I don't see  
> anything like that in there (yet). I hope I didn't miss something  
> obvious, I did Google I promise ;-)
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Andrew
>
> -- 
> Dr Andrew Gibson
> Universiteit van Amsterdam
>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewgibson>
>
>

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 10:33:55 UTC